Who owns your DNA? (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Its inaccurate to say this company owns a patent to your or my DNA.

They own a patent on a certain type of isolated DNA - which is not DNA. Isolated DNA does not naturally occur in the way DNA does.

Not saying the court here was right - but you should be clear what you are talking about.

what's isolated DNA? and does it make this story any less disturbing?

 

[A.D.Rock]

what's isolated DNA? and does it make this story any less disturbing?

If its parts of DNA taken out in DNA extraction, then no, it doesn't make it any less disturbing.

 

[SaintStephen]

the whole patent system (and the lawsuits therein) is getting out of control

2 + 2 no longer = 4.....

 

[JimEverett]

what's isolated DNA? and does it make this story any less disturbing?

Isolated DNA apparently is DNA with some sort of proprietary matter added to it.
I mean I imagine people without biochemistry doctorates really understand - but it apparently does not exist in anyone's body nor in any sort of natural state. It was invented by this company.

 

[Taurus]

Isolated DNA apparently is DNA with some sort of proprietary matter added to it.
I mean I imagine people without biochemistry doctorates really understand - but it apparently does not exist in anyone's body nor in any sort of natural state. It was invented by this company.

It would be fair to say they could patent the process, but not the end result.

It's like patenting a smoothly cut lawn vs patenting a lawnmower.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

Saying they own my DNA based on that is tantamount to laying claim to the logging rights the world over because you dissected a tree once.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

the whole patent system (and the lawsuits therein) is getting out of control

Honestly I have no problem with companies patenting genes that they have researched and isolated for use in end user consumer products... however I think patent law has to be adjusted in many situations to fit its purpose, to foster innovation. Companies should either only own the rights to the marketable use that they develop for the gene, or perhaps that and some sort of forced licensing to other companies that develop alternative uses for the genes in question.

Of course if a unique gene is "created" I could see that being exclusive... but as it stands right now the gene that is "created" by isolating the material should not be restricted in the same manner, it certainly should free for other companies use in their own research.

Either way the investment in research and the risk involved need to be handsomely rewarded but not at the cost of further innovation... there are a lot of circumstances in copyright law today where the letter of the law no longer serves the spirit of the law adequately.

 

[JimEverett]

It would be fair to say they could patent the process, but not the end result.

It's like patenting a smoothly cut lawn vs patenting a lawnmower.

That is not what it is like.
On that analogy it would be like taking a lawn adding some sort of chemical compound to the lawn and the result being what is patented.

 

[JimEverett]

Saying they own my DNA based on that is tantamount to laying claim to the logging rights the world over because you dissected a tree once.

No one is saying they own your DNA.

 

[Optimus Prime]

anyone how this turned out?

Reminded by the DNA from arrestees thread

 

[mulletslinger]

Supreme Court Rules DNA Can Be Taken After Arrest : NPR

edit: not really the same thing as the op, but pertinent to dna right none the less.

edit a: doh! didnt see the other thread.

 

[TheDeparted]

So if DNA is used to prove me guilty of a crime, does that mean they are the guilty ones since it is their DNA?

No - they would charge you with theft and patent infringement

 

[TheDeparted]

Its inaccurate to say this company owns a patent to your or my DNA.

They own a patent on a certain type of isolated DNA - which is not DNA. Isolated DNA does not naturally occur in the way DNA does.

Not saying the court here was right - but you should be clear what you are talking about.

The article says:

Worse, the restrictions of Myriad’s patents are not limited to breast cancer genes. The company claims any piece of DNA having “at least 15 nucleotides” of the BRCA1 gene. In work we recently published in the journal Genome Medicine, we found that these short sequences in BRCA1 also appear in 689 other genes that have a wide variety of functions, including brain development and proper cardiac functioning.

Myriad’s claim is outrageous but must be understood in context. All of the genes in the human genome share 15 nucleotide sequences with numerous other genes. So the broad reach of a patent on a single gene is not unique to Myriad’s claims on BRCA1. If patents allow claims for 15 nucleotide sequences, then a patent that was issued for bovine improvement to Cargill, an agricultural company that provides advice on cattle breeding, covers 84 percent of human genes, even though Cargill is interested only in cows. This lack of specificity underscores why patents on short, indiscriminate DNA sequences never should have been issued.

[...]

In the case of BRCA1, data from large-scale cancer projects such as the Cancer Genome Atlas have shown that BRCA1 is mutated in not only breast and ovarian cancer but also at least 21 other types of cancer that afflict both men and women. Myriad’s patent means it owns the monopoly on testing DNA from any patient for any of those cancers, even though the company does not do work on the majority of those diseases.

Are they wrong in this?

 

[GeauxWhoDats]

I have a team of patent attorney's working on finding a way to patent the periodic element Oxygen. Pay up or learn to hold your breath forever suckers.

 

[El Caliente]

2 + 2 no longer = 4.....

2+2=5 actually