Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#21

Post by chm »

alexholehouse wrote: post #17
_delirium wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand the situation correctly, it seems fairly similar to the status quo with drugs, for better or worse. You can't patent chemicals naturally occurring in plants that have medicinal uses, but you can patent synthetic versions of the same drug.

So I'm not super familiar with drug patent laws - can those synthetic version and naturally occurring version be identical (as in chemically) or does the natural one need to be subtly different (e.g. extra methyl group, or whatever)?

I'm not sure if this answers your question:

If an algae produces molecule A, one can determine its structure and (in theory) synthesize it in a lab. Both will be structurally identical. Of course, if the chemist wants to add X or Y moieties to the original algal molecule, he can. One could also determine the source of a certain molecule (bio vs. lab) by looking at the different isotopes in each molecule.

(In theory because some syntheses are practically extremely difficult.)

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#22

Post by epistasis »

_delirium wrote: post #12
alexholehouse wrote: post #7

Yeah this is actually a pretty poor news source (hopefully it will be updated). For more comprehesive coverage info see http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/06/13/supreme-... A crucial point is the cDNA is patentable, which still makes very little sense.

If I understand the situation correctly, it seems fairly similar to the status quo with drugs, for better or worse. You can't patent chemicals naturally occurring in plants that have medicinal uses, but you can patent synthetic versions of the same drug.

I think you do understand it correctly, but I find it very disturbing. The difference between these two situations is night and day: the complete synthesis of naturally occurring small molecules is unique each time, and can require dozens of PhD-level chemists and a decade or more to complete, if it's even possible. It requires a huge amount of invention, and a huge amount of discovery.

Making cDNA is a standard kit, on order from any number of vendors, and is a standard molecular biology technique.

So basically, the Supreme Court, or at least Justice Clarence Thomas, is completely clueless.

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#23

Post by epaulson »

300bps wrote: post #9

Anyone that has used a genetic testing service has seen that they test you for hundreds of genetic disorders and traits. If not for patents on genes they could test for thousands. For example, the test at 23andme was only able to test for a couple BRCA1 mutations because most of them are patented. My wife (whose grandmother died at 29 from breast cancer) had to pay $1,500 to get the test done because of these stupid…

So this is the crux of it for me - why is testing for some of these genes not covered by any patents, and yet others are covered by patents?

Part of me thinks "of course genes can't be patented, no one invented them", and then part of me thinks "using the patent system to protect gene isolation is an interesting legal hack because we don't have a better way to protect the investment involved with gene discovery." And surely it's got to cost something to figure out which genes are interesting to test for, which is the real value in the gene test, right?

But if that's the case, how is anything on the 23andme test cheap? Publicly funded research? Benevolent release of research from private labs? Old research that no one thought to patent? Much more reasonable licensing terms? Oversight by the current patent holder?

How realistic is the specter of "No one will do gene isolation after this decision?"

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#24

Post by maxerickson »

epaulson wrote: post #23
300bps wrote: post #9

Anyone that has used a genetic testing service has seen that they test you for hundreds of genetic disorders and traits. If not for patents on genes they could test for thousands. For example, the test at 23andme was only able to test for a couple BRCA1 mutations because most of them are patented. My wife (whose grandmother died at 29 from breast cancer) had to pay $1,500 to get the test done because of these stupid…

So this is the crux of it for me - why is testing for some of these genes not covered by any patents, and yet others are covered by patents? Part of me thinks "of course genes can't be patented, no one invented them", and then part of me thinks "using the patent system to protect gene isolation is an interesting legal hack because we don't have a better way to protect the investment involved with gene discovery." And…

"No one" is completely unrealistic. There are all sorts of foundation and government dollars interested in treating diseases.

I have no idea about estimating the actual impact on spending.

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#25

Post by chm »

tehwalrus wrote: post #6

It's ridiculous that a patent system exists that would allow someone to even try to patent the result of billions of years of evolution.

It's hard to draw the line. Cynically:

What part of yourself (or anything else, really) is not the product of billions of year of evolution? To what extent can your actions be considered "original"? Can you prove that all of your actions, inactions, beliefs and ideas are an original and non-obvious product of your "self"? Can you prove the discontinuity between "you" and billions of years of evolution? All it takes is a reasonable doubt.

I don't like the Supreme Court decision, but one has to break the circle somewhere.

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#26

Post by 300bps »

epaulson wrote: post #23
300bps wrote: post #9

Anyone that has used a genetic testing service has seen that they test you for hundreds of genetic disorders and traits. If not for patents on genes they could test for thousands. For example, the test at 23andme was only able to test for a couple BRCA1 mutations because most of them are patented. My wife (whose grandmother died at 29 from breast cancer) had to pay $1,500 to get the test done because of these stupid…

So this is the crux of it for me - why is testing for some of these genes not covered by any patents, and yet others are covered by patents? Part of me thinks "of course genes can't be patented, no one invented them", and then part of me thinks "using the patent system to protect gene isolation is an interesting legal hack because we don't have a better way to protect the investment involved with gene discovery." And…

>But if that's the case, how is anything on the 23andme test cheap?

23andme is actually doing original research. It scares me a little bit that I did it though because 1) I am afraid of genetic discrimination even though some states have made this illegal. 2) I found out genetic disorders that I did not know I had. Fortunately none are horrendously serious but I found out what will probably kill me at some point like it killed some of my grandparents.

For research, they ask as many survey questions as you are willing to answer - anything from "Do you have psoriasis?" to "Do you cry easily?" and many many more. They are then able to correlate answers to these questions with your genetic makeup. The final result should give additional information when aggregated among all their customers.

Beyond that, I assume that many genes aren't patented just like many business processes are not patented. The person that first discovered the gene didn't go through the time and expense to patent it (for whatever reason) and because there was prior art, it's not a good target for other people to patent either.

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#27

Post by dpratt »

This is just me being pedantic, but I want one exception to this - every person, upon birth, should receive an automatic instantaneous patent on their own genome (and only their own genome) that is valid for the lifetime of the owner. I should be free to be able to sell this patent, but upon first sale, the patent expiration rules change to the default.

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#28

Post by exit »

dpratt wrote: post #27

This is just me being pedantic, but I want one exception to this - every person, upon birth, should receive an automatic instantaneous patent on their own genome (and only their own genome) that is valid for the lifetime of the owner. I should be free to be able to sell this patent, but upon first sale, the patent expiration rules change to the default.

can you explain why?

patents incentivize innovation (supposedly). no one invents their own genes.

if someone wins the genetic lottery and has a gene that confers immunity to X, they get to monopolize the distribution of that immunity?

why?

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

#30

Post by sachinag »

300bps wrote: post #26
epaulson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is the crux of it for me - why is testing for some of these genes not covered by any patents, and yet others are covered by patents? Part of me thinks "of course genes can't be patented, no one invented them", and then part of me thinks "using the patent system to protect gene isolation is an interesting legal hack because we don't have a better way to protect the investment involved with gene discovery." And…

>But if that's the case, how is anything on the 23andme test cheap? 23andme is actually doing original research. It scares me a little bit that I did it though because 1) I am afraid of genetic discrimination even though some states have made this illegal. 2) I found out genetic disorders that I did not know I had. Fortunately none are horrendously serious but I found out what will probably kill me at some point like…

Genetic discrimination is illegal nationwide thanks to 2008 GINA: http://www.genome.gov/10002077
Post reply on HN