al-mofhariz

Illustration of "native" DNA in the human cell, from the majority opinion in Ass. for Mol. Path. v. Myriad Genetics, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about a case the US Supreme Court will hear on April 15th concerning whether genes can be patented. As we get closer to that date, I want to pick up the thread where it was left off. As a quick reminder, the case before the court now concerns the validity of a patent that was granted to Myriad Genetics on a pair of genes (BRCA 1/2) whose presence has been shown to confer an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Here, I want to examine how this case turns on a difficult ontological question, namely: what kind of things are genes? A number of people who support Myriad’s patent argue that human genes ought to be understood as a molecule like any other. They are a material object, nothing more and nothing less. Others, including the co-discoverer of DNA’s molecular struct...

On April 15 of 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case challenging the practice of patenting DNA sequences, including human genes. With the forbidding title of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics , this case is all but certain to have a huge impact on the history of biotechnology, the patent law, and interactions between science and capitalism more broadly. Today, I am posting the first of a two-part piece on the case, with some thoughts on patenting living things and parts thereof. The case currently before the US Supreme Court concerns a biotech company called Myriad Genetics. During the mid 1990s, Myriad successfully filed for a patent on two genes (BRCA1 and BRCA 2) that dramatically increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Having sequence both of these two genes, Myriad Genetics developed a diagnostic test, which it currently markets for several thousand dollars. It is worth emphasizing that Myriad’s patent covers the genes them...