Supreme Court to decide if human genes can be patented
rt.com
rt.com
"An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2"
Now, in order to perform any medical analysis on your DNA, you need to make copies, so this is essentially the same as patenting the gene itself, but it does make the argument a little bit more subtle. Still a ridiculous thing to patent — I don't see any novelty in an vitro copy of something that occurs in nature — but not as obviously a product of nature itself.
Also, the author says that the "genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients." In fact, every human being always has those genes, but they become mutated in often stereotyped ways in cancer patients.
Back in my Ph.D. days the scientists I worked with were pretty much unanimous in thinking these patents should be overturned — they very strongly hinder basic scientific study and medical analysis. And they're not a patent on a method, or a type of analysis, or anything like that — just a patent on a straight-up in vitro copy (and not the method for copying!). I don't see any economic value in protecting that at all when a first-year grad student had the skills to do that from a human DNA template decades ago.
If remember correctly, it is codified into law that you can use patented materials or processes in basic research.
“You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.
Why do you hate America?
That question implies a very confused version of history. BRCA1/2 were discovered by NIH-funded researchers at universities. Some of these co-discoverers went on to found Myriad. Other co-discoverers, such as Mary-Claire King, did not.
Also, after the first large-scale GWAS studies in the late 2000s, a high school student with enough funding could have discovered the BRCA1/2 - breast cancer association.
That's also an ahistorical comment. Prior to Bayh-Dole, federal research funding obligated discoveries to be assigned to the government. Post Bayh-Dole, universities get to pursue patents even if the discovery was publicly funded.
So you actually cannot blame the NIH; you could blame Congress.
I was simply pointing out that one can't blame the NIH for the lack of stipulations on their grant money.
What ! ?
It will be interesting to see this argument being handled in the Supreme Court. If looking for a specific gene is patentable, it comes very well into the definition of patenting a purely mental operation.
In a comment about patents two days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438), I linked to a talk which also brought up the fist Amendment issue with patents, and how it connect to software patents. You can also just read it (and thus jump directly to the related parts) in this transcript: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/Bils...
"Supreme Court to decide if anything can be patented at all"
Oftentimes, on HN, discussion entails personal anecdote, personal opinion, and an onslaught of agreement and disagreement, usually completely unrelated to the article in question.
I think, however, that it is unanimous that the patent thing is completely spiraling out of control. Not only are patent trolls completely stifling innovation, but patents, as indicated here, are proving to be more harmful than good.
Intellectual property is not property. What you think is not something you own. Nobody owns ideas; trying to patent them is as absurd as you can get.
A quote from the late Aaron Swartz sums it up brilliantly.
There is no obvious reason other than tradition and cultural goals that a lawyer has to be paid $200/hr instead of $20/hr, ditto no reason a postdoc biomedical researcher has to be paid $30K/yr instead of $300K/yr. The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead.
We live in a central govt controlled economy. If you have control of the government, which we probably don't, then you can also select the priorities.
It also has the assumption that profit is the only reason why people work. Simple salary arrangements work pretty well for most people, as does contract work. Some other ways people make money without profit include prizes (Nobel, etc) and being cultural heros (pro sports athletes, unfortunately definitely not biomedical research scientists)
Finally some people just love the subject area and will voluntarily starve their family, look at any STEM other than CS/IT/high level applied medical (aka hospital dr cardiologist etc). I would not bet on it, or demand that only people taking a vow of poverty are "real" scientists or whatever. But there always will be some nuts willing to eat Ramen every night for the rest of their lives.
The average lawyer doesn't make $200/hr. You can't compare your average biomedical postdoc to the top law school graduates. A biomedical postdoc is sacrificing pay now because he probably hopes to get a job as a tenured professor some day. It's something like clerking for a judge after law school.
Another thing, law students pay for law school, many of them rack up $150k in debt before they even start working. Most STEM PhD candidates are being paid while going to grad school.
>The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead.
There are far too many law school graduates each year for the amount of lawyers demanded. Unless you can get into a good school and graduate near the top, law school is probably a bad idea. While the prospects for most STEM degrees look much better than other majors.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202588541180&...
A report on the Sources of Cancer Research Funding in the United States (http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/NC...) found that only 31% of the funding in cancer research is from industry. The majority is from tax money (federal and state), which stand for about 63% of all funding. The rest is non-profit.
Maybe that 31% would be lower without patents. Some might still do the investing because they earn money on related products (for-profit hospitals to name one). Maybe the costs in medical institutions and research labs would go down because they can spend less to lawyers. Maybe the state would be willing to spend more and have more directed taxed to replace the lost industry funding.
But we are only talking about 31%, a number I would very much like to see updated for 2013. It also a number as reported by the industry itself, so its worth asking how true it is. The only number we can be fully sure on is the billions of state and federal funding.
You do it because you're a good person who cares more about humanity than profit.