Patenting Breast Cancer Genes: Good for Patients?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

First, proposing to give every American over 50 a million dollars is ludicrous. The value of money would deflate rapidly... Even devoting a second of space to that idea is physically making me gag.
Anyway, I am glad the ACLU is finally forcing the justice department's hand at really looking at gene patent law. Under NO circumstances should a company be able to claim a naturally occurring gene as their own property. Followed to its logical conclusion, our own individual genetic information might be literally bought and sold on a market without our permission.
You can't patent an apple, and therefore you shouldn't be able to patent the genetic code that gives me green eyes, or a rare disease. It's just absurd.

Sarah of OH 2:49PM March 30, 2010

I don't think that insurance companies should have any right to make policy determinations regarding health, life and death decisions for anyone except themselves and their families. We, the public, need the diagnostic tests we need when we need it, not when the insurance company deems it convenient to them after they have capriciously and automatically denied the request for at least three times. In health issues, time is of the essence for the proper diagnostic protocols to be effective. Only my doctor & I should be the ones to make decisions & determine what diagnostic tests I should undergo and what my medical treatment should be after we get the test results. And this is just the first step of many to come in a potentially long medical journey.
We, the American public should have the same or better healthcare, medical and hospitalization coverage that our US Senators & other elected officials. Our Senators certainly have the financial ability to pay for their own medical coverage whereas we the working poor are losing our jobs, our insurance, and our homes in escalating and astronomical numbers.
Instead of bailing out the banks that caused our economic crisis, our government should be bailing out taxpayers by giving each of us over 50 years old, $1 million, enough money to pay off our mortgages, buy premium Blue Cross Blue Shield medical& hospitalization coverage, and buy a new American car. That would start to help abate our current economic crisis.
Let us be clear, the insurance industry is about making money, not about making sure that our medical expenses are paid in a timely manner. They are automatically denying claims because doing so saves them money for as long as they continue to deny the claims.

Cynthia Long of NY 1:13PM November 09, 2009

Response to "Excerpted from Gen Quinn blog post".
The comments in the aforementioned post are fallacious and sophistic. Further, it is a classic ad hominem attack. Weak minds beget weak arguments...
The ACLU is not contending the unconstitutionality of the entire patent system. They are contending that these particular patents are in violation of the constitution.
Yes, a "METHOD IS NOT A GENE".
The ACLU did not contend the patent on the specific diagnostic test developed by Myriad. Rather, they contend that the patent prevents others from even looking at these genes, thereby preventing any new diagnostic tests or research on these genes from any party other than Myriad.

Guy of CA 11:37PM May 18, 2009

While it is true that the patents include common mutations of BRCA1 & BRCA2, these changes are NOT changes made by human ingenuity. Both the wildtype genes, AND the mutated genes concerned, are products of nature.

Brian of MA 12:08PM May 18, 2009

Excerpted from Gen Quinn blog post:
This lawsuit is nothing more than grandstanding, it presents frivolous arguments and outright lies. The ACLU would have you believe that the patents cover naturally occurring genes, which is simply not true, and the primary reason they should be sanctioned. The patents they are challenging relate to altered genes and diagnostic methods, so they are making assertions that are factually false, and challenging the patent system as being unconstitutional, which if successful would only bring an end to the biotechnology industry and perhaps even pharma. This would mean no new drugs, not diagnostic advances and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, not to mention a stock market crash.
Of course the ACLU knows nothing about patents, and this complaint proves that, and many other things as well. Patent claims are not invalid for constitutional reasons. The Supreme Court has time and time again reviewed US patent laws, which have been around since 1790, never once finding the law unconstitutional, and no court has ever ruled a patent claim invalid because the claim violates the US Constitution. This is grandstanding pure and simple, and it is disgusting that the ACLU is using cancer patients to forward its own political agenda and profile. If change is what you want ACLU then go to Congress. You are asking the courts to legislate, and that is not their role.
I am sure the ACLU doesn’t want average people to look at the claims because you could tell they are lying if you did, let me state the obvious. A diagnostic method does not naturally occur, but rather is a process conjured up by humans; and when something is “isolated” and “altered” it is not how God, the creator, spirits or luck (whichever you prefer) caused things to be naturally ordered.
The complaint also makes the popular, and completely baseless, assertion that patents undermine innovation, which has also worked its way into popular press reports.
It seems as if those who hate the patent system think that if they say this a lot it will eventually become true, or be believed to be true. The trouble with this, however, is that there are absolutely no historical facts to support the claim that patents harm or undermine innovation. Patents simply do not harm innovation, they spur innovation. The patent system is set up to encourage engineering around and improving upon protected inventions of others. The only legitimate argument that patents harm innovation goes like this: “I am soooo lazy and simply have no desire to undertake the hard work necessary to innovate, so I want to copy what others have spent exorbitant amounts of time, money and energy creating, after all, that is the only fair thing!”
If patents stand in the way of innovation that is a YOU problem, not a patent system problem!

Lee of NC 9:32AM May 15, 2009

Excerpts from Gene Quinn, which are on point:
The ACLU should be sanctioned for its frivolous lawsuit challenging gene patents. This lawsuit is nothing more than grandstanding, it presents frivolous arguments and outright lies. The ACLU would have you believe that the patents cover naturally occurring genes, which is simply not true, and the primary reason they should be sanctioned. The patents they are challenging relate to altered genes and diagnostic methods, so they are making assertions that are factually false, and challenging the patent system as being unconstitutional, which if successful would only bring an end to the biotechnology industry and perhaps even pharma. This would mean no new drugs, not diagnostic advances and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, not to mention a stock market crash.
Of course the ACLU knows nothing about patents, and this complaint proves that, and many other things as well. Patent claims are not invalid for constitutional reasons. The Supreme Court has time and time again reviewed US patent laws, which have been around since 1790, never once finding the law unconstitutional, and no court has ever ruled a patent claim invalid because the claim violates the US Constitution. This is grandstanding pure and simple, and it is disgusting that the ACLU is using cancer patients to forward its own political agenda and profile. If change is what you want ACLU then go to Congress. You are asking the courts to legislate, and that is not their role.
I am sure the ACLU doesn’t want average people to look at the claims because you could tell they are lying if you did. A diagnostic method does not naturally occur, but rather is a process conjured up by humans; and when something is “isolated” and “altered” it is not how God, the creator, spirits or luck (whichever you prefer) caused things to be naturally ordered.
Let me try and put this in terms that even the ACLU can understand… A METHOD IS NOT A GENE! Also… SOMETHING IN ALTERED STATE DOES NOT OCCUR NATURALLY!
The complaint also makes the popular, and completely baseless, assertion that patents undermine innovation. It seems as if those who hate system think that if they say this a lot it will eventually become true, or be believed to be true. The trouble with this, however, is that there are absolutely no historical facts to support the claim that patents harm or undermine innovation. Patents simply do not harm innovation, they spur innovation. The patent system is set up to encourage engineering around and improving upon protected inventions of others. The only legitimate argument that patents harm innovation goes like this: “I am soooo lazy and simply have no desire to undertake the hard work necessary to innovate, so I want to copy what others have spent exorbitant amounts of time, money and energy creating, after all, that is the only fair thing!

Lee of NC 9:26AM May 15, 2009

I have watched too many people become afflicted by cancer, including three generations in my own family. So much suffering can be prevented if early detection is available.
I'm going to keep a close eye on this and if there's a way for me to get involved I would like to.
No one should be denied the opportunity to save their lives! I pray that this testing becomes available to everyone and that researchers work together for the sake of humanity and continue their endeavor for the cure.
God Bless

Kelleen Benway of MA 8:07AM May 15, 2009

It is important to make a clear distinction between inventions and discoveries. Imagine if the wheel had been patented. Would our society been different? A number of companies who hold gene patents, do not intend to do anything other than sell royalties. This is wild capitalism. What is worth more...the millions of life lost to cancer, or the profits of a company that was first to discover a natural occurring gene.

Youssouf Niang of CA 3:42AM May 15, 2009

"Patenting Breast Cancer Genes: Good for Patients?"
Is copyrighting US News and World Report bad for readers?
Would there be any genetic tests without any incentive to invent them?
For hundreds of years it has been recognized that society benefits from giving inventors a TEMPORARY exclusive right to their inventions in exchange for teaching society how to practice the invention.
I believe it was a commissioner of patents who asked an audience how many among them felt that all monopolies were bad. A few gentlemen raised their hands, upon which he asked them what their wives were doing that night.
Which of the following is preferable:
1. There should be no incentive whatsoever to find a cure for cancer, AIDS, global warming, malaria, etc., or to discover new energy sources or improve the lives of people through R&D and innovation. If there is any financial incentive, consumers have to pay more. R&D people and companies should work for free.
2. There should be a TEMPORARY incentive, like a patent, for ex., for people to innovate and solve problems. Would you want to do your job for free?
Thomas Edison used to be admired. There seems to have arisen intense hatred against intellectual property from file sharers who have to rationalize stealing IP by convincing themselves that intellectual property is villainous, and stealing is OK because. The Blackberry panic was another factor.
Stealing someone else's property is always a bargain.
I was amused today at a blogger who has been quite supportive of illegal copying of music and movies, but suddenly found himself in the same boat as someone has been making money on Kindle by filching his blog. People sing a different tune whey their stuff is being stolen.

Luther of IL 2:15AM May 15, 2009

But if it gets to the Supreme Court, the outcome will tell you a lot about how you like the reasoning of Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito---who will all be on the same side and most likely that of the corporations involved.

Muser of NM 5:41PM May 14, 2009