The United States Supreme Court is hearing a challenge that
could strike down patents on genes, including those involved in
genetically-modified crops and livestock testing.
The case is centred on gene patents for breast and ovarian
cancers held by Myriad Genetics inc.
It challenges the right of the U.S. Patent Office to grant
patents for the discovery of genes, a practice that began in 1982 and is
crucial to businesses such as Monsanto and its Roundup-ready genes and
companies that market their gene-detection expertise to artificial insemination
units and purebred livestock breeders.
Companies involved in patenting genes they have researched
argue that the intellectual property rights are crucial to make money to pursue
research.
Medical doctors and members of the public argue that no
company ought to be able to profit from a person’s body parts.
The
group opposing Myriad says the company has used the patents to block other
laboratories from testing the genes for mutations, in some cases depriving
women of important information.
The opponents also say the patents are so broad
that they deter use of the genes for research.
Gene
patenting “impedes your relationship to your physician,” said Daniel Ravicher, president
of the New York- based Public Patent Foundation, which along with the American Civil
Liberties Union represents the challengers.
“It gives exclusive
monopolistic control over a portion of your body to a corporation whose legally
required interest is to maximize profits for its shareholders,” he says.
On
the other side, those favouring continued gene patenting say it has led to
valuable treatments, including Amgen Inc.
(AMGN)’s Epogen anemia drug and synthetic insulin developed by
Genentech Inc., now part of Roche Holding
AG.
A
decision against gene patenting would impact biotechnology, agriculture,
industrial microbiology and pharmaceuticals, says a professor at Duke
Unviersity.
The
case has implications for the growing field of personalized medicine and
efforts to map the human brain and discover new uses for embryonic stem cells.
It
potentially could bar patents on discoveries outside the DNA context.
“The
intellectual framework that comes out of the decision could have an impact on
other patents,” said Robert Cook- Deegan, a public-policy professor at Duke University and its
Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy.
Beyond
medicine, “this could affect agricultural biotechnology, environmental
biotechnology, green-tech, the use of organisms to produce alternative fuels
and other applications,” he says.
