I received email from the ACLU today, announcing that they "just won a landmark ruling in the BRCA gene patents case.
Overturning 20 years of precedent, the federal district court boldly declared that a person's genetic information is a product of nature and may not be patented.
" It went on to say that "this decision ends Myriad Genetics' control of patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
If upheld, it will also end the ability of private corporations, individuals, and universities to own exclusive rights to patented genes and to prohibit all others from testing, studying, or even looking at them.
Such patents are now held on approximately 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the human genome.
That's why this is a huge victory not just for women's health, but for scientific freedom.
" I feel that the ACLU and others opposed to gene patenting have put an unfair spin on the issue, and have also missed the bigger picture.
Here's the other side of the story: First, never has it been allowable to patent naturally-occurring genes, despite the spin that the ACLU has put on its cause.
What has been patented are the methods of obtaining or using naturally-occurring genes, methods of extracting or isolating gene sequences, and purified natural substances, such adrenaline, insulin, and vitamin B12.
Where would we be if companies had been discouraged from advancing research to eventually produce these substances commercially.
Should the makers of artificial hearts or prosthetic limbs be restricted from patenting those products, too? Patent law makes such advances commercially-viable endeavors - it bring these things to market and improves our lives.
Changing patent laws to restrict currently-patentable methods and purified natural substances will discourage corporations from funding research into the human genome because they will be less able to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
If the ACLU has their way, any investment into such research would just expand the public domain of knowledge in the field without giving the company any ROI or competitive advantage over any other entities that might use the results of their research.
In economic theory, this would result in a variety of the "Tragedy of the Commons," in that everyone would sit back and wait for someone else to spend the money on the research.
Finally, these two specific patents were ruled invalid because they were neither methods nor enhancements, as I previously described.
These patents were overturned on patent law, not on Constitutional grounds, so there is little cause to expect that this ruling will have any bearing on valid patents.
Just the same, it's still important that people understand these issues more fully, because if organizations like the ACLU continue misleading and misdirecting uninformed people, they may ultimately bring about detrimental change.
Believe it or not, I am actually a proud supporter of the ACLU in its fight to defend civil liberties and natural rights, but I find myself disagreeing with them more and more frequently as they get themselves mixed up in matters of business and commerce, and it makes me rethink my support.
I wish they would stick to defending people against governments, and stop meddling in other affairs.
Overturning 20 years of precedent, the federal district court boldly declared that a person's genetic information is a product of nature and may not be patented.
" It went on to say that "this decision ends Myriad Genetics' control of patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
If upheld, it will also end the ability of private corporations, individuals, and universities to own exclusive rights to patented genes and to prohibit all others from testing, studying, or even looking at them.
Such patents are now held on approximately 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the human genome.
That's why this is a huge victory not just for women's health, but for scientific freedom.
" I feel that the ACLU and others opposed to gene patenting have put an unfair spin on the issue, and have also missed the bigger picture.
Here's the other side of the story: First, never has it been allowable to patent naturally-occurring genes, despite the spin that the ACLU has put on its cause.
What has been patented are the methods of obtaining or using naturally-occurring genes, methods of extracting or isolating gene sequences, and purified natural substances, such adrenaline, insulin, and vitamin B12.
Where would we be if companies had been discouraged from advancing research to eventually produce these substances commercially.
Should the makers of artificial hearts or prosthetic limbs be restricted from patenting those products, too? Patent law makes such advances commercially-viable endeavors - it bring these things to market and improves our lives.
Changing patent laws to restrict currently-patentable methods and purified natural substances will discourage corporations from funding research into the human genome because they will be less able to benefit from the fruits of their labor.
If the ACLU has their way, any investment into such research would just expand the public domain of knowledge in the field without giving the company any ROI or competitive advantage over any other entities that might use the results of their research.
In economic theory, this would result in a variety of the "Tragedy of the Commons," in that everyone would sit back and wait for someone else to spend the money on the research.
Finally, these two specific patents were ruled invalid because they were neither methods nor enhancements, as I previously described.
These patents were overturned on patent law, not on Constitutional grounds, so there is little cause to expect that this ruling will have any bearing on valid patents.
Just the same, it's still important that people understand these issues more fully, because if organizations like the ACLU continue misleading and misdirecting uninformed people, they may ultimately bring about detrimental change.
Believe it or not, I am actually a proud supporter of the ACLU in its fight to defend civil liberties and natural rights, but I find myself disagreeing with them more and more frequently as they get themselves mixed up in matters of business and commerce, and it makes me rethink my support.
I wish they would stick to defending people against governments, and stop meddling in other affairs.