One of the few indisputable truths, at least apparently, is that we are the sole owners of our bodies (and if not, see the slogans of some feminist campaigns) but what if some of us were regulated under patent rights? It sounds crazy but it is a reality in part because more 20% of of genes in the human genome are patented (at least in America).
practical purposes does not mean the company that owns the patent rights to your genes have but if the information arising from them. For example, a person with a family history of breast cancer, a cancer with a strong genetic association, you may want to know if any of the mutations that predispose to this tumor and it would be to analyze genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 that (at least until very recently, and now talk about it) were subject to patent and could only be analyzed by the escrow company the patent.
 |
| not patenting genes |
This prevents the individual has free access to their genetic information to be able to compare results of the test (second opinion) and also limits research on these genes because it is necessary to permit the company (on payment of patent rights) and although most appear not to prevent the non-profit research, in other cases (such as BRCA1 and 2 genes ) there are complaints from researchers such as geneticist Wendy Chung Columbia University, who say that advances in knowledge about this gene have been stalled by Myriad interference (company holding the patent).
Last year the American Association for Civil Rights ( ACLU) sued the company Myriad Genomics on the grounds that the patent on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is illegal. And won.
A federal court judge ruled that the patent rights on those genes were illegal as they related to products of nature (genes) and abstract ideas. Although the company has appealed the verdict, this ruling serves as predecente and could change the situation respect of all patents associated with genes to date (20% human genome to date) and lead to changes in research policy of private companies and public research. Myriad
argues that if it goes the right to patent genes stop private companies have an incentive to invest in research and development advances in diagnostic techniques, therapies ... will be slowed, however, other voices suggest that the advancement of knowledge will not stop even if there is no possibility of economic benefit of the patent (in fact very few scientific discoveries are patented or leaving the market) and indeed 90 in the race for the discovery of the BRCA gene specifically renounced many groups seek patent rights.
 |
| Do you also see this company as a monster? |
So far this reflects the situation across the Atlantic, here in Europe we also have laws that gene patents are a reflection in part of the Americans, although they vary among countries. And recently, last summer, and perhaps also as a reflection of the ruling in ACLU v. Myriad in the European Court of Justice ruled against Monsanto who had denounced Celera and other companies for violating its patent rights on certain genes of soybean.
And thus setting the precedent for changes in European legislation, but for now we have to wait ...
In my view this statement brings two good news: one, that knowledge should not belong exclusively to one and two, so that people regain the rights to your information.
In a memo separate comment that this type of genetic association tests are not a panacea, why is so important further investigation openly, to make them truly efficient. A lot are useless without the key data to interpret.
0 comments:
Post a Comment