In this relatively recent, landmark Supreme Court case, the Association for Molecular
Pathology, various other medical professionals, and even a few patients petitioned together in order to sue Myriad Genetics for attempting to patent the specific genes known as BRCA1 and
BRCA2. Christopher A. Hansen represented the plaintiffs of this case while Donald B. Verrilli,
Jr., Solicitor General, from the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., argued on behalf of the respondent of the case (SCOTUSblog). BRCA1 and BRCA2 are genes that can be used as indicators of breast cancer in women (Oyez). Myriad Genetics had sequenced these genes from strands of human DNA and wished to patent them for the expressed purpose of control over any future use of the …show more content…
They go on to state that the overall method that Myriad Genetics used to sequence the DNA was nothing unique to the scientific community, offering no real contribution to the rest of society (Supreme Court of the United States). It simply wasn’t
Thomas 4 innovative enough to deserve its own patent. They even state that groundbreaking, new discoveries don’t necessarily even solicit an immediate patent for it doesn’t fully satisfy the rules of section 101 from the Patent Act (Supreme Court of the United States). The, now deceased, Justice Antonin Scalia gave his opinion which partially concurred with the ruling of his fellow Justices but also contained some of his own judgement,
“I join the judgement of the court and all of its opinion except Part 1-A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology…. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature” (Supreme Court of the United …show more content…
This can cause issues with the relationship between doctors and their patients if the patients believe they’ve been misdiagnosed by the doctor’s own doing.
In reality, the doctors can’t actaully screen their patients for every problematic gene because of patents held over said genes. Fortunately, the Supreme Court prevented this from to fruition. Their decision takes a strong stance against lazy, non-inovative patenting. Their decision encourages a more competitive and inventive environment within the scientific community, pushing for better, more effective, methods to benefit society. In the end, this only pushes our advancement forward in a fair, just. In this situation, the rights of individuals outweighed the rights of their opposition.
This case was considered a victory in that cancer patients, more specifically woman cancer patients, wouldn’t have certain aspects of their genome patented and marketed for private use by a single business entity, leaving room for the possible monopolization of cancer tests in the future. It is important to remember that DNA is indeed a fundamental part of
Pathology, various other medical professionals, and even a few patients petitioned together in order to sue Myriad Genetics for attempting to patent the specific genes known as BRCA1 and
BRCA2. Christopher A. Hansen represented the plaintiffs of this case while Donald B. Verrilli,
Jr., Solicitor General, from the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., argued on behalf of the respondent of the case (SCOTUSblog). BRCA1 and BRCA2 are genes that can be used as indicators of breast cancer in women (Oyez). Myriad Genetics had sequenced these genes from strands of human DNA and wished to patent them for the expressed purpose of control over any future use of the …show more content…
They go on to state that the overall method that Myriad Genetics used to sequence the DNA was nothing unique to the scientific community, offering no real contribution to the rest of society (Supreme Court of the United States). It simply wasn’t
Thomas 4 innovative enough to deserve its own patent. They even state that groundbreaking, new discoveries don’t necessarily even solicit an immediate patent for it doesn’t fully satisfy the rules of section 101 from the Patent Act (Supreme Court of the United States). The, now deceased, Justice Antonin Scalia gave his opinion which partially concurred with the ruling of his fellow Justices but also contained some of his own judgement,
“I join the judgement of the court and all of its opinion except Part 1-A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology…. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature” (Supreme Court of the United …show more content…
This can cause issues with the relationship between doctors and their patients if the patients believe they’ve been misdiagnosed by the doctor’s own doing.
In reality, the doctors can’t actaully screen their patients for every problematic gene because of patents held over said genes. Fortunately, the Supreme Court prevented this from to fruition. Their decision takes a strong stance against lazy, non-inovative patenting. Their decision encourages a more competitive and inventive environment within the scientific community, pushing for better, more effective, methods to benefit society. In the end, this only pushes our advancement forward in a fair, just. In this situation, the rights of individuals outweighed the rights of their opposition.
This case was considered a victory in that cancer patients, more specifically woman cancer patients, wouldn’t have certain aspects of their genome patented and marketed for private use by a single business entity, leaving room for the possible monopolization of cancer tests in the future. It is important to remember that DNA is indeed a fundamental part of