A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.
SC: “A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and is not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated” Woo Hoo!!!
Places to read about it
I’ll be reading SCOTUSblog to figure out what the gene patent case means http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/live-blog-of-opinions-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-17/ …
Wall St. Journal on Myriad Ruling: Supreme Court Rules Isolated Human Genes Can’t Be Patented http://on.wsj.com/13EBLZA
US Supreme Court Rules (Unanimously) That Human Genes May Not Be Patented
Big news: Supreme Court finally rules on gene patents. Naturally occurring genes CANNOT be patented http://pops.ci/13HACPx
Opinion: bad science
One of my own concerns about the whole process has been the poor understanding of the science on display. How to make a decision when there is clearly a lack of (full) understanding of the thing being decided upon? The ruling itself features more awkward science, as many picked up immediately -
The first paragraph of the Supreme Court’s Myraid ruling botches the science. I’m not optimistic here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/06/13/supreme-court-gets-decision-right-science-wrong/ … Supreme Court gets a failing grade in Bio 101, but gets the decision right.
Scalia on DNA Patents: I Don’t Really Understand Science http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/13/myriad_dna_patenting_supreme_court_case_scalia_says_he_doesn_t_get_the_science.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_chunky … via @FutureTenseNow
Really? Antonin Scalia Does Not Believe in Molecular Biology http://gawker.com/antonin-scalia-does-not-believe-in-molecular-biology-513125290 …
At least Scalia admits he doesn’t understand the science… http://onforb.es/16iBFI7
@carlzimmer The PLoS blog is wrong on pseudogenes. Composite cDNA is only in the summary; Thomas gets it right. My comments at the post.
Supreme Court announcement has already allowed $MYGN competitors to step into the BRCA test fray: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-ruling-today-allows-dnatraits-to-offer-low-cost-brca-breast-and-ovarian-cancer-gene-testing-in-us-2013-06-13 …
the logic of the cDNA part of SCOTUS ruling is weird: cDNA doesn’t exist in nature because it doesn’t have introns? what about mRNA?
“The court said that DNA molecules synthesized in a laboratory were eligible for patent protection. Myriad’s shares soared after…ruling.”
The interesting thing about the SCOTUS gene ruling is going to the boundary between “naturally-occurring” and “synthetic.”
Hopefully, US Supreme Court ‘natural DNA sequences aren’t patentable’ decision finally settles great ‘But what if..’ of genome project era.
So I think a key question about the SCOTUS ruling on patenting human DNA is what will happen with DNA from other species …
#SCOTUS #haiku Ass’n for Molec. Path. v. Myriad Genetics (6/13/13) Can you patent it? A DNA segment, no cDNA, yes http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf …
.@RowGirl2012 asks: Can bedside DNA Dx tests be done w’out significant investment depending on gene patents? (I blv Yes, since they r.)
Excuse what formatting issues remain. It’s been a struggle producing this post — cut’n'paste from twitter to WordPress, then editing in WordPress doesn’t want to play well (to be very polite about it) and I’ve no time to explore solutions.
Other articles on Code for life: