Hereditary cancers of the breast and ovaries -- shoud genetic research companies own sole-patents to genetic therapies -- or shoud USA's patients also be part owners?

It seems to me that this is a both/and situation, and the the USA Supreme Court shoud force the two sides to reach a compromise where both get their basic points met without further ado.  I think the patients, here especially hi-risk patients of hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer, obviously two female-specific health conditions, which a largely-male Court runs the risk losing its juridical credibility if it goes in favour of the corporation involved, the whole USA population of female patients shoud get the tilt, if justice has to tilt one way or another.  Add to the patients the interests of scientists and medical doctors, the American Medical Association (with which I don't always agree), AARP (likewise), and women's health groups (certainly I disagree with those which want to enforce taxation on everyone to support the promiscuous sexual morals they advocate), still taken together this is a formidible array of concerned people opposed to patenting human genes pure and simple.  So, let's get back to the patients who may be and some who are known to be at hi-risk for hereditary breast cancer, and hereditary ovarian cancer.  These potential and actual patients shoud come first in all the disiderata the Court may have to wei.

-- Albert Gedraitis


New York Times (Dec1,2k12)

Supreme Court to Look at a Gene Issue

by ADAM LIPTAK

Published: November 30, 201

• 
  

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether human genes may be patented.  ....

The case the court added to its docket concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said that their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated. “Myriad and other gene patent holders have gained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,” the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in their petition seeking review. They added that the patents “prevent patients from examining their own genetic information” and “made it impossible to obtain second opinions.”

The legal question for the justices is whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection.

A divided three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington ruled for the company. Each judge issued an opinion, and a central dispute was whether isolated genes are sufficiently different from ones in the body to allow them to be patented.

“The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature,” wrote Judge Alan D. Lourie, who was in the majority. “They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity.”

The company urged the justices not to hear the case, saying that the “isolated molecules” at issue “were created by humans, do not occur in nature and have new and significant utilities not found in nature.” It has long been settled, the company’s brief went on, that “the human ingenuity required to create isolated DNA molecules” is worthy of encouragement and that its fruits are worthy of protection.

The plaintiffs in the case, Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, were supported by friend-of-the-court briefs filed by the American Medical Association, AARP and women’s health groups.  ....