Should Genes Be Patented?
Should Genes Be Patented?
The issue of gene patenting sparked intense controversy throughout the nation that culminated with the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Supreme Court case, which concluded this past June. The case regarded Myriad Genetics, a molecular diagnostic company based in Salt Lake City, and its patents on genes that correlate with an increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Prior to the ruling, the company’s possession of these patents entailed that women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer going through an checkup of their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes – which can signal the likelihood of the diseases – could only do so by undergoing a $4,000 examination created by Myriad Genetics. The ruling delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas sustained, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.”
The Supreme Court’s decision correctly emphasizes the patent eligibility of the issue at hand, but appears to overlook the ethical consequences of the BRCA patents. This essay thus aims to clarify my support for the Supreme Court’s ruling against a specific form of gene patenting: that of isolating unique DNA structures. My argument finds its premise in the purpose of the patent system, my appreciation for the development of scientific research, and the morality of affordable medical analyses.
I find it difficult to argue for the patent eligibility of Myriad Genetics’ methods for the isolation of the genes. “Myriad did not create anything,” Justice Clarence Thomas writes for the court, and cannot possibly satisfy the patent requirements to be recognized as an invention that deserves legal protection. The company undoubtedly identified “an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.” An appropriate analogy
The issue of gene patenting sparked intense controversy throughout the nation that culminated with the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Supreme Court case, which concluded this past June. The case regarded Myriad Genetics, a molecular diagnostic company based in Salt Lake City, and its patents on genes that correlate with an increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Prior to the ruling, the company’s possession of these patents entailed that women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer going through an checkup of their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes – which can signal the likelihood of the diseases – could only do so by undergoing a $4,000 examination created by Myriad Genetics. The ruling delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas sustained, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.”
The Supreme Court’s decision correctly emphasizes the patent eligibility of the issue at hand, but appears to overlook the ethical consequences of the BRCA patents. This essay thus aims to clarify my support for the Supreme Court’s ruling against a specific form of gene patenting: that of isolating unique DNA structures. My argument finds its premise in the purpose of the patent system, my appreciation for the development of scientific research, and the morality of affordable medical analyses.
I find it difficult to argue for the patent eligibility of Myriad Genetics’ methods for the isolation of the genes. “Myriad did not create anything,” Justice Clarence Thomas writes for the court, and cannot possibly satisfy the patent requirements to be recognized as an invention that deserves legal protection. The company undoubtedly identified “an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.” An appropriate analogy