You Don't 'Own' Your Own Genes 293
olePigeon (Wik) writes "Cornell University's New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases for which they might be at risk. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual 'genomic liberty.'"
Derivative Works (Score:4, Funny)
Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!
Think of the children! No, really.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just be glad they patented them and didn't copyright them! patents only last 20 years, in two decades you'll own your genome again.
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it odd they could patent something they didn't invent.
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, they can't. They can patent their usage by some method, such as a diagnostic test. That's just how patents work.
The headline is just a bit of sensationalism.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
That isn't to say that the patenting of diagnostic tests does not represent its own potential problems, but it is very differnt then the more sensational take on the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Monsanto claims to have patents on genes in seed. If you happen to come up with some seed by any means with those genes in them, it's consideed infringing. So, I think your comment here is likely wrong.
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Interesting)
If you believe in software patents, then aren't Monsanto's patents just an extension of that? They're just sequences of code that, when compiled and run, does a particular thing...
Re: (Score:3)
Except that most software does not spread itself and automatically replace the software you normally use. It's more like virus writers suing you copyright infringement when your computer gets infected by their 'products'.
Re:Derivative Works (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Insightful)
That's something we already know. It's how humans got viral genes [discovermagazine.com], how cows got snake genes [nationalgeographic.com], how a sea slug got algae genes [newscientist.com], and how a pea aphid got fungal genes, [npr.org] among other known examples. It's pretty rare unless you're giving things an evolutionary time frame, and has little to do with genetic engineering, either in terms of scientific or patent related concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they don't own the genes, they own a procedure.
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Unless everyone was born when the last patent was granted. (And, of course, the patents covered procreation with those genes - which they don't).
Re:Derivative Works (Score:5, Insightful)
Our immune system already enforces a "no derivatives" clause. Procreation is only possible with an elaborate workaround that keeps the immune system from noticing what's going on.
Re:Derivative Works (Score:4, Funny)
So a DMCA takedown notice then
Re:Derivative Works (Score:4, Funny)
Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!
Now worries there. After watching things like Jersey Shore, the US Senate and most television shows it's pretty clear we're still amateurs.
Normally I wouldn't own my own genes... (Score:5, Funny)
...but fortunately, I have complete legal ownership due to the grandfather clause.
Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes... (Score:4, Funny)
That only covers half of your genetic material because there's no grandmother clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, though nearly impossible, they could have genes passed 100% from two grandfathers. Of course, their mother would have to be identical/clone of their grandfather and expressing as female due to some externally-caused developmental quirk.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, OP may in fact *BE* a grandfather.
Upcoming supreme court case (Score:5, Interesting)
"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.
* Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they don't throw out the patents, does that mean people with the mutation who do develop cancer have standing to sue the company then since they have patents on those genes?
Re: (Score:3)
No, the company will sue the cancer patients for illegally duplicating their invention.
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:5, Informative)
company will sue the cancer patients
You might by trying for cynicism, but this is just all too similar to cases already won by Monsanto [dailytech.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, specifically, the tumors are duplicating the invention, which means cancer is illegal. If something is declared illegal, it is necessary to go to War On It (TM, US government), incarcerating those associated with said thing, therefore eliminating it. Ipso facto QED they just cured cancer by patenting it. God bless our patent system. *one.single.tear*
Re: (Score:2)
Long answer: If you spend a lot of money then you can probably SUE them. And you'll lose that money doing so and will possibly get fined on top of that, and maybe countersued? (IANAL) The only way you would get anywhere with that tactic would be if you were able to spend far more money on lawyers than myriad or whatever the greedy group of assholes calls themselves. Legal insanity only works on behalf of the wealthy and the corporations.
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:5, Funny)
Let me get this straight.... If this patent is upheld, it will become illegal to pass along BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes to offspring.
We've found it - the cure to cancer!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As the article points out 15 nucleotides is too small to be subject to patentability. Hopefully at least this much is thrown out.
I expect that at least some of this patent will be thrown out. But not all - the tests the Myriad invented using these genes are real inventions.
Re: (Score:3)
But not all - the tests the Myriad invented using these genes are real inventions.
As I understood it, the tests that Myriad invented have already been deemed unpatentable by the precedent of Mayo v. Prometheus and in re Bilski. At issue is the patentability of "isolated genes", or whether the isolation of a DNA sequence outside of its chromosome makes it no longer "naturally-occuring" and thus makes it patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of the tests. Some, such as those used for screening therapies are still covered.
http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/08/15/machine-or-transformation-test-after-myriad-iimplications-to-the-prosecution-of-process-claims/ [pli.edu]
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:5, Informative)
The same SCOTUS which decided that cities and counties can condemn people's homes because a golf course is better use of the land?
I doubt it. I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.
Except that it is not the same SCOTUS that reached that decision. Four years ago, I would have bet that the balance of power in the SCOTUS had shifted such that it would have overturned that ruling (if someone could have come up with a case that gave them a fig leaf against "overturning precedent"). However, I am no longer sure how the balance goes on that issue. Several Justices who I thought I understood their judicial philosophy have voted the opposite of what I expected in the last couple of major, controversial decisions. In the same way, Sotomayor and Kagan have taken positions that suggest that they might be less likely to uphold the Kelo decision than their political philosophy before getting on the Court would have suggested.
Re: (Score:3)
It also doesn't mean they're right. How often do you see unanimity in a decision? Are some of the justices wrong or do they simply have a differing opinion?
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:4, Funny)
I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.
This is slashdot: odds are we won't have to pay licensing fees no matter what they decide.
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:5, Funny)
Pirate Babies FTW!!!
(points at own junk) DMCA this, motherfuckers!
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:4, Funny)
"Sir, ConglomeratedGenCo has issued a DMCA takedown request for your pants."
Re: (Score:3)
Property is owned by the State, Governed by the Feds, and leased to individuals(tax). This is written into the Constitution.
Fifth Amendment of Bill of Rights:
"....nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. "
"Just compensation" allows for private property to be taken for public use... You may not agree with the terms, but the law is pretty clear. Who determines what "just compensation" ? The state.
-CF
Re: (Score:3)
Public use! Public use!
Roads, schools, bridges, freeways, military bases... not shopping malls, golf courses and housing tracts. There's been a longstanding tradition of "interpreting" "just compensation" as being pennies on the dollar (rarely fought against successfully). When the government can take stuff at the price that it dictates and "sell" it to private interests, it has become a full fledged corruption mechanism.
Re: (Score:3)
And the same SCOTUS that has decided that the filing for an S-Corp magically creates a new person who is endowed with god-given rights to anonymously buy elections.
I don't trust them to come down on the side of flesh-and-blood persons over the corporate kind as long as that prick-with-ears Antonin Scalia sits on the court. He's the one who decided that congress passing a law una
Re: (Score:3)
No problem. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
Scalia isn't responsible for all of the bad decisions of the Court, but his fingerprints are all over the very worst ones, consistent only in their level of evil. But logically, completely inconsistent. Pro-federalism when states want to do something horrible and anti-federalist when states want to d
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if irony:
"Humanity is fucking doomed- nothing has really changed for the last 50 thousand years in terms of human behavior"
Re:Upcoming supreme court case (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you would find many here on /. that shares your lament over how corporations behave like psychopath along with how a few sociopaths have long controlled the mainstream masses due to power/greed/lust/control but aren't you being just a _tad_ pessimistic??
Considering the fact that the western world has running water, don't have to risk life nor limb for their daily food, the majority has a relatively safe place to sleep, we can learn the past few _thousand_ years of Mathematics, Science, and Philosophy all within roughly 10-20 years, not to mention all the cool tech the average person has access to (such as the ability to communicate long distances) the human race is "overall" in a better place then it was 50,000 years ago. No?
The fundamental root problems with humanity is two-fold:
* an archaic belief that there is never enough, and
* fear which manifests in many forms: greed, power, control, etc.
It took how many thousands of years to ... ??
* be allowed to believe a different philosophy without getting killed (religion)
* be allowed to write a different philosophy without getting killed (censorship)
* to grow the fuck up and out-law ownership of another person (slavery)
Heck one guy said "Can't we all just get along. We can and we should." and was nailed to a tree for pointing out the flaw in human nature.
So why are you all that surprised that we have [yet] to learn the final lessons?? Namely:
* The Basis of Civilization is built upon Sharing,
* When we stop blaming/allowing others to control us and take personal responsibility; when we realize the truth:
"We are our own government", and
* "Grow the fuck up" and become civilized by not treating our fellow man/woman with less respect / honor / love that we should be treating everyone as our father / mother / brother / sister
Ultimately, humans will learn the secret ingredient:
That the purpose of the universe is a dynamic feedback system designed to teach; namely, at the end of the day it is all about one thing:
Relationships.
--
Only cowards use censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
explain how a society where "everybody's wants were easily satisfied" evolves into modern industrial society if that initial premise is true?
That's easy. Change in society does not have to be driven by improvement on an individual level. Societies that grow food crop will have higher population growths than societies of hunter-gatherers. As agricultural society expands, it usurps/conquers/murders the neighbouring hunter-gatherer societies. Whether individuals in the agricultural society were happier/more content/healthier is not relevant - they simply had more people, and hence more military power. Same for the industrial revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Except SCOTUS was entirely correct in that decision. What the constitution guarantees is not always a good thing. Had they allowed this law to limit political speech in the way that it did, you could easily see how future laws could be used against the public rather than for its best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The one time they ruled to restrict government power according to the constitution. That's the one that made you lose all your confidence in them.
Is it opposite day or something?
Theya re correct (Score:2)
It's just a chemical. Like water.
OTOH, it's naturally occurring, so they should be able to patented either.
Patent chemical derivations? absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
really? so if I asked someone one 50 years ago what part of the DNA, if any, could be used to diagnose breast cancer probability, they would have known?
no, it is not obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
The "non-obvious" requirement in the context of patents specifically refers to an expert skilled in the art at the time of the discovery, so your example is irrelevant. Once the mutation was identified, it was obvious that it could be used as a diagnostic tool in this way.
To draw a computing analogy, this would be like patenting a single-use program that detects the signature of a single non-polymorphic virus, where the signature is a piece of that virus's code, and then taking out a separate patent for eac
Prior Art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:5, Funny)
If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.
Re: (Score:2)
You where raped? Or perhaps there was some sort of permission involved.
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently his DRM was faulty
Re: (Score:2)
She violated the TOU when she broke the shrink wrap.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.
Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance ... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Nono, this is about license violation.
See, he provided his "intellectual property" with the limited terms that it would not be used to produce any derivative works whatsoever, and was provided as is, non transferable, and only for the specific activity specified, under the binding verbally contractual agreement that no such unauthorized reproduction or derivative works would be made, and that if it occured out of negligence on her part to control her own reproductive equipment, the onus of any burden would
Re: (Score:2)
So, Apache or GPL license is finally a life or death argument!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.
Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance ... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)
Funny commentary?
Or ominous vision of the future?
Oh boy...... (Score:2)
Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody is massively and badly f*cking up, somewhere.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because the patents cover isolated, amplified genes which are not products of nature.
Every material object in the sidereal universe is a 'product of nature'. The question is whether or not it was modified by man when the issue of patentability comes up.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably all human genes are modified by man, especially those in a human
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an argument that would give you an F in patent law 101.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be an argument that would give you an F in patent law 101.
That's a painfully sad way to look at the situation...
I suppose, now, there's no point in majoring in Biochemistry, unless you're planning on a minor in Patent Law...
Fuck.
Prior Art!! (Score:3)
I claim prior art! Well, my parents could, at least.
Copyright my own genes? (Score:2)
Can I send a cheek-swab to the US Copyright office and copyright my own genes?
sue (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you get sick with cancer, just sue the company that is the owner of the gene. Tell the courts they own the patent and you never asked for there products to be put into you. Make clear you only want those mutated cancer cells removed that they own.. Free cancer treatment.
In that case: (Score:2)
"Humans don't "own" their own genes"
Can we repossess them from Soulskill and Cowboy Neal? :)
If Protein Synthesis is Outlawed... (Score:2)
...only outlaws will synthesize their own proteins.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that the problem with jimhadar on st ds9 they had to have ketrisell white but the founders removed thier genes that produced it so they would be dependent one them for it
Here is a way to fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
Find a company which "owns" a gene that controls some specific disease, like a cancer. Now, everyone with that disease files a lawsuit against the patent holder. They own it, they should be liable for the damages it is causing by being released into the general population. By claiming a patent, this implies invention, therefore we can infer liability!
After a few multi-million dollar lawsuit awards, no one would want to "own" a gene. Problem solved.
This is discovery of fact (Score:2)
How in the world this is even eligible for being patented escapes me. I know. This is the same rant that has been repeated over and over again here. Patents should be for inventions or things that people have created.
If I do a whole bunch of research and learn things that other people haven't learned about the sun, can I patent the bloody thing? How is patenting genes any different?
Re: (Score:2)
It's because we aren't advocating the immediate disbarment of about 75% of the lawyers in North America. If I had my way, there would be a random lottery that would cull three quarters right now, and would maintain that ratio to the rest of the population for the rest of time.
Much ado about nothing. (Score:2)
Unless there is program to clone me and then take over my life, I really don't care who owns my "genes". I am sure there are people shaking with rage hearing about this, but get over it, its a non-issue for 99.9999% of the population. People just like to fight for something without caring about what its about other then "the injustice of it all".
Lastly, God owns our genes, so there.
So this is how slavery returns to America (Score:2)
The act of conception produces a baby that is considered to be unlicensed derivative work of companies in the biotech industry. The parents must either pay between $200 - $150,000 dollars for each infringement. If the parents cannot pay the fine, the corporations can gain legal guardianship of the child and either use the child for their own medical research purposes, or sell the child to a sweatshop and place a lien on the child's earnings for their lifetime until the debt is repaid.
Try to patent this phenotype: (Score:2)
The extended middle finger.
Games (Score:2)
When I saw the summary title I read it as, "You don't own your own games." I thought, "Great, THIS story again," before I noticed I read it wrong. Completely off topic, but I thought it was funny.
Bullshit. (Score:2)
Cell Division (Score:2)
My cells divide all the time, I am therefore a walking sack of IP violations. Nice.
Stop being rational (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bad title is bad (Score:4, Informative)
People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.
From the Federal Register: [gpo.gov]
A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all fine humor and all. But I remember reading a science fiction story about a person who resembled a well-known movie star. That person was sent a "cease and desist", in essence told to get plastic surgery to quit looking the way he was born to. That's the first paragraph or two, the meat of the story was his response. Since I read the story decades ago, I've forgotten the rest, and only remembered the premise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering a human may not own his own genes, the raw data that defines their human body's construction, how long before everyone receives a letter from a patent troll stating that they must pay a licencing fee if they wish to continue using their genes?
FTFY.
I sincerely hope they actually try to pull some shit like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche to sue whoever they want for whatever reason.
Well, "basically" (the superfluous "basically" make the user look like an idiot by the way) anyone can sue for any reason whatsoever, and they do. My wife, who works for a silicon valley court system sees this all the time. The from high powered corp lawyer to the crazy cat lady living in a shopping cart. Corporations don't own lawsuits as you appear to be implying.
Re: (Score:2)
"Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche legal basis to win a summary judgment against whoever they want for whatever reason."
There - fixed that for the OP.
Yes, anybody can sue anybody for any reason, but not everybody has a 90% chance of winning such suits case after case, often without even warranting a trial. Add this to unfounded RIAA infringment claims, traffic tickets from private companies (camera installers and operators), and medical bills from any random physician that sneaks into a
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but at another level you cannot patent in vivo genes as these are a product of nature.
The genes covered by these patents all go through a process where they are isolated. Since the genes in your body are the result of natural processes any such patent suit would have much less than a 90% chance of success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you base that on? do you have a logical argument?
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Crichton had been talking about gene patents for years
read his book titled "Next"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In that case (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to cover just how much wrong you stuffed into that single sentence would be a task akin to cleaning the Agean Stables. That you say such a thing while you sit on your well-fed ass, in your warm home, taking access to all the 100% clean and safe water and food you could ever want for granted, wearing machine-woven cloth, sitting in front of a machine so incredible it would've been literally indistinguishable from magic 100 years ago (let alone 1000), leads to one of two conclusions:
Either you are a spoiled whinging twit posessed of an ignorance of history as stunning as your lack of perspective, or you are so stupid it's amazing that you remember how to breathe.
Re: (Score:2)