Watson and Crick uncovered the double-helix structure of DNA 60 years ago, but the law has not settled on the issue of DNA and patents.
Brian Resneck of the National Journal has an interesting article today (March 1, 2013) about three upcoming Supreme Court cases related to DNA, legal precedent, admissible evidence and patents.
In 1980, a microbiologist modified DNA to produce a bacteria that can break down crude oil, thus reducing the effect of oil spills. The patent examiner rejected the request for a new patent but was overrulled because the DNA combination was in fact new and unique.
First Case
Human genes may be a different matter. Women with genes BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a sixty percent chance of developing breast cancer. Myriad Genetics has found a way to isolate these genes for testing. Myriad Genetics has also altered the genes and claims a fee for every diagnostic test on the gene and any further research. A lower federal court has ruled against Myriad on the grounds that it is unfairly taking advantage of a force of nature. Myriad has appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.
Second Case
In Maryland, if you are booked for a crime, a DNA sample is taken. Does this consitute an unreasonable search and seizure. Maryland, and other states, aren’t reconstructing the entire genome of the suspect, they are merely looking at 13 "markers." The states claim these markers are "benign." Is the DNA allowable, as fingerprints are for suspects, or is it unreasonable, and invasion done without probable cause of a crime?
Third Case
What about the offspring of genetically altered plants? Monsanto owns a patent on altered soybean DNA that changes the behavior of the plants so that they don’t die when Roundup is sprayed on them. Monsanto has been granted a patent for this plant. In contracts with farmers who plant the genetically altered soybeans, Monsanto has a clause stating that the plants’ seeds are not allowed for use as additional planting by the farmer. Monsanto claims that the farmer recreates the patented plant without authorization from the patent holder. This is a big case. The Supreme Court ruling might have an effect on, say, copies of computer software, for example.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/what-is-a-gene-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-law-the-supreme-court-still-doesn-t-know-20130301
Brian Resneck of the National Journal has an interesting article today (March 1, 2013) about three upcoming Supreme Court cases related to DNA, legal precedent, admissible evidence and patents.
In 1980, a microbiologist modified DNA to produce a bacteria that can break down crude oil, thus reducing the effect of oil spills. The patent examiner rejected the request for a new patent but was overrulled because the DNA combination was in fact new and unique.
First Case
Human genes may be a different matter. Women with genes BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a sixty percent chance of developing breast cancer. Myriad Genetics has found a way to isolate these genes for testing. Myriad Genetics has also altered the genes and claims a fee for every diagnostic test on the gene and any further research. A lower federal court has ruled against Myriad on the grounds that it is unfairly taking advantage of a force of nature. Myriad has appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.
Second Case
In Maryland, if you are booked for a crime, a DNA sample is taken. Does this consitute an unreasonable search and seizure. Maryland, and other states, aren’t reconstructing the entire genome of the suspect, they are merely looking at 13 "markers." The states claim these markers are "benign." Is the DNA allowable, as fingerprints are for suspects, or is it unreasonable, and invasion done without probable cause of a crime?
Third Case
What about the offspring of genetically altered plants? Monsanto owns a patent on altered soybean DNA that changes the behavior of the plants so that they don’t die when Roundup is sprayed on them. Monsanto has been granted a patent for this plant. In contracts with farmers who plant the genetically altered soybeans, Monsanto has a clause stating that the plants’ seeds are not allowed for use as additional planting by the farmer. Monsanto claims that the farmer recreates the patented plant without authorization from the patent holder. This is a big case. The Supreme Court ruling might have an effect on, say, copies of computer software, for example.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/what-is-a-gene-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-law-the-supreme-court-still-doesn-t-know-20130301
No comments:
Post a Comment