# Should genes be patented?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-genes-be-patented/655758>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 15, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-genes-be-patented/655758 "2013-04-15T13:07:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-genes-be-patented/655758/21 "2013-06-13T17:16:51Z")

</div>

Well, the SCOTUS ruling is in.

[Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-may-not-be-patented.html?hp&target=comments&_r=0#commentsContainer)

> [@](#):
>
> The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, was whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection.
> 
> Myriad’s discovery of the precise location and sequence of the genes at issue, BRCA1 and BRCA2, did not qualify, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. “A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” he said. “It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.”
> 
> “Groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the criteria” for patent eligibility, he said.
> 
> But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature, Justice Thomas added, is an invention eligible for patent protection.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-genes-be-patented/655758/22 "2013-06-13T17:46:18Z")

</div>

"But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature, Justice Thomas added, is an invention eligible for patent protection. "

So evolution is now patentable. Darwin missed the boat on that one.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-genes-be-patented/655758.md?page=1)