# You can't patent a human gene: SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 13, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903 "2013-06-13T15:24:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/21 "2013-06-14T18:48:48Z")
Wondser how long it will take for lobbyists to convince Congress to pass laws making it possible to patent genes? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/22 "2013-06-14T19:11:59Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Wondser how long it will take for lobbyists to convince Congress to pass laws making it possible to patent genes? Not likely. First, the decision allows new genes to be patented, just not ones found in nature. Second, the sound bite against a representative let a company patent a part of a voter would be quite powerful. Anyhow, such a law might be unconstitutional, since patents cannot apply to things found in nature, but rather to invented things. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/23 "2013-06-14T19:14:31Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Does this imply people may have died because Myriad sought to restrict/monopolize testing? Since the patent restricted the ability of other companies to develop other tests which might be less expensive and restricted competition, it is possible that some people died because they couldn’t afford to get tested. Which is far different from a case of murder. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/24 "2013-06-14T19:29:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First, the decision allows new genes to be patented, just not ones found in nature. Except, of course, for patent leather. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/25 "2013-06-14T19:37:31Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Oh, then the word “monopoly” was mis-used? I think we’re talking about two different things. The company’s monopoly prevented other companies from developing rival tests. It did not prevent any patients from taking _its_ test. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/26 "2013-06-14T20:43:12Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The company’s monopoly prevented other companies from developing rival tests. It did not prevent any patients from taking _its_ test. Unless they couldn’t afford to pay for the test. And with no other companies legally allowed to devise competing test methodologies, Myriad was facing little pressure to lower their test cost. Not murder - but not desirable, either. ---
**Author:** ![\_Olive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/4af34b/32.png) [@\_Olive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Olive)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/27 "2013-06-14T22:18:28Z")
Very good news! ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/28 "2013-06-15T04:19:57Z")
> [@Turek](#): > > Darn, I was just about to run out and patent spleens! 😛 [Article](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515886/artificial-spleen-offers-hope-for-faster-sepsis-diagnosis-and-treatment/): Artificial Spleen Offers Hope for Faster Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/29 "2013-06-15T10:29:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Anyhow, such a law might be unconstitutional, since patents cannot apply to things found in nature, but rather to invented things. How so would such a law be unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/30 "2013-06-15T20:19:24Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Does this imply people may have died because Myriad sought to restrict/monopolize testing? > > If that can be shown, and since the courts have repeatedly ruled that corporations have the same rights as people, can we expect murder charges to be filed against Myriad? It is possible that women who might have gotten the test and chose breast amputation might have died as a result. Hard to prove but possible. It was pointed out that Angelina Jolie could easily afford the $3000 cost, but many women couldn’t. On the other hand, while corporations seem to have the same rights as people, they obviously don’t have the same responsibilities. So the behave exactly as people would if they had rights only. ---
**Author:** ![Dalai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@Dalai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dalai)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/31 "2013-06-16T15:48:20Z")
I am happy with the decision made. My questions are regarding who spent money to map the genome, and should people who benefit from this costly information have to share some of that cost. I’m still happy about the decision made. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/32 "2013-06-16T16:53:13Z")
I am glad that some sort of rationality might some day return to the field of IP law. Perhaps one day the Federal Circuit might be abolished. Or reformed. Its interesting, but the most cited overseas US court is not SCOTUS, but the Federal Circuit. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903/33 "2013-06-16T18:55:41Z")
> [@Dalai](#): > > My questions are regarding who spent money to map the genome, and should people who benefit from this costly information have to share some of that cost. I’m still happy about the decision made. The [Human Genome Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project) was primarily publicly funded. That’s sort of the curx with many issues in scientific research, a lot of discoveries are made by collaborating and sharing information between researchers. Most of this starts at the foundation level with government grants. A private firm, _Celera_, threw their hat into the Human Genome race, intending to proceed faster than the publicly funded researchers, which made the race to complete the mapping more competitive, but a big source of conflict arose when _Celera_ used the publicly compiled information, but then refused to share their own. > [@](#): > > Many believe that the competition proved to be very good for the project, spurring the public groups to modify their strategy in order to accelerate progress. The rivals at UC Santa Cruz initially agreed to pool their data, but the agreement fell apart when Celera refused to deposit its data in the unrestricted public database GenBank. Celera had incorporated the public data into their genome, but forbade the public effort to use Celera data. The BRCA genes, their location on chromosome 13 and 17 and their relationship to breast and ovarian cancer were discovered by scientists working at publicly funded institutions, and by establishing the International Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium (BCLC), they shared this information with other members. What really pushed Myriad to the front was their access to the [Utah Population Database](http://www.huntsmancancer.org/research/shared-resources/utah-population-database/overview), which used Mormon genealogical information to track diseases in family lines. Again, this database is considered public, though the University of Utah controls access. During the ‘gold rush’ of gene patenting in the early 90’s, _pre-internet_, a researcher at the University of Utah used this database to fully sequence BRCA 1&2 and many of it’s mutations. This scientist later went on to start Myriad and cultivate private investors, but the discovery was made at the University of Utah, using what is generally considered a public database. When discoveries are made using a combination of public and private funds who “owns” that information? Many people believe scientific discoveries belong in the public domain, but applications of that knowledge used to invent something new are what is private and patentable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-cant-patent-a-human-gene-scotus/660903.md?page=1)