2 However, the Court held, molecules reverse-transcribed from messenger RNA to eliminate intron sequences-so-called complementary DNA, or cDNA-are patentable. All nine Justices on the Court agreed that the segments of DNA that make up human genes are not patentable subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act because they are products of nature. While ethical and policy arguments were a major feature of the debate surrounding the case, the decision focused squarely on the definitions of two codes: the genetic code and the patent code. For others, the challenge to Myriad’s gene patents amounted to an attack on the intellectual property protections that fuel private investment in biomedical discovery. “Life’s instructions,” James Watson asserted in one of 49 amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, “ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts.” For some, the gene patents were a symbol of a shrinking commons and an over-reaching patent system that traded too much monopolistic power for too little innovation. Myriad Genetics, 1 has generated enormous interest among medical institutions, industry organizations, patient advocacy groups, and scientists. Are human genes patentable? On June 13, the Supreme Court gave its long-awaited answer-a unanimous “no.” The case, Association for Molecular Pathology v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |