ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer genes

News Type: Event — Seeded on Wed May 13, 2009 8:40 AM EDT

Article Source: CNN

us-news, cancer, genetics, aclu, breast, patent, genes

"Knowledge about our own bodies and the ability to make decisions about our health care are some of our most personal and fundamental rights," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The government should not be granting private entities control over something as personal and basic to who we are as our genes."

Published to:

charnello's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Crime and Punishment, EconVine, Newsvine Science, Political Analysis, Science And Technology, Texvine community, Worldviews
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

5.4

1.2

{"commentId":7048080,"authorDomain":"charnello"}

charnello

Myriad and the research foundation hold patents on the pair of genes -- known as BRCA1 and BRCA2 -- that are responsible for many cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

The ACLU contends that patenting the genes limits research and the free flow of information, and as a result violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges genetic patenting in general, noting that about 20 percent of all human genes are patented -- including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy and asthma.

I do not support any corporation holding a patent on my genes. Patent a method of treatment or a procedure or a medicine, fine. But patent something that's a part of myself and every other human on the planet, no. That does not sit well with me at all.

{"commentId":7048080,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"charnello"}

3 votes

#1 - Wed May 13, 2009 8:44 AM EDT

{"commentId":7048732,"authorDomain":"JStranahan"}

Jimster

Outrageous. Wrong, just wrong.

How can this have even come to pass? Corporations holding patients on human genes?

Ravicher offered an analogy to describe the plaintiffs' argument, saying, "It's like saying if someone removes your eyeball ... just because you remove the eyeball and wash it off, that doesn't make the eyeball patentable.

"Now if they create another eyeball out of plastic or metal, then you can patent that."

Don't you have to invent something to get a patient on it?

Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing.

The company also charged $3,000 a test, possibly keeping some women from seeking preventive genetic testing, the ACLU says.

How do these people sleep at night?

{"commentId":7048732,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"JStranahan"}

3 votes

#1.1 - Wed May 13, 2009 9:26 AM EDT

{"commentId":7049198,"authorDomain":"charnello"}

charnello

I may not agree with everything the ACLU does, but I'm glad there's some sort of watchdog out there. I do not understand who thought this was an acceptable idea, and I cannot understand how it is justified.

You're born and a company already owns a piece of you? That's messed up.

{"commentId":7049198,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"charnello"}

1 vote

#1.2 - Wed May 13, 2009 9:52 AM EDT

{"commentId":7049939,"authorDomain":"alacount"}

mtpromises

I'm also of the opinion that my blood, urine, etc are MINE, not anybody else's---just say NO to drug testing!

I thought it was bad when I got wrote up for sunburning myself while in the service.....destruction of govt property......lol

{"commentId":7049939,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"alacount"}

#2 - Wed May 13, 2009 10:27 AM EDT

{"commentId":7050155,"authorDomain":"charnello"}

charnello

I thought it was bad when I got wrote up for sunburning myself while in the service

That really happened? Wow.

{"commentId":7050155,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"charnello"}

#2.1 - Wed May 13, 2009 10:36 AM EDT

{"commentId":7051314,"authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}

Pacific Northwest Blogger

They must win this lawsuit, the future of medicine is at stake.

{"commentId":7051314,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}

#3 - Wed May 13, 2009 11:30 AM EDT

{"commentId":7057258,"authorDomain":"davebg8r"}

FL Independent

If this company created the gene, they can patent it. Since they did not, they cannot. Its that simple. They cant take claim for the work of others. This would be like the first person to view a new animal trying to patent the animal or the first person who saw a galaxy claimed on patent on galaxies. Just ridiculous.

{"commentId":7057258,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"davebg8r"}

1 vote

#4 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":7058933,"authorDomain":"alacount"}

mtpromises

talk to mon santo about that---they are patenting seeds aka food

{"commentId":7058933,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"alacount"}

#4.1 - Wed May 13, 2009 4:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":7059097,"authorDomain":"davebg8r"}

FL Independent

I am not fan of monsanto but they are modifying the foods that they patent. They may have tried to move on to patent naturally occuring variations, Im not sure. But if something would appear in nature then you cannot logically patent it as it already exists. If they made corn glow in the dark, they could patent that since it does not normally occur.

I think the idea of genetically modifying our foods it frankly stupid and very dangerous. These people act like they have full understanding of our bodies and our foods, how they interact, and all the possible consequences of these modified items on other plants, animals, and the environment.

{"commentId":7059097,"threadId":"577469","contentId":"2812289","authorDomain":"davebg8r"}

#4.2 - Wed May 13, 2009 4:34 PM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"577469","isPrivate":false}

CHARNELLO

Backyard

ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer genes

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: