- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
We have all read, argued, listened to, supported, discouraged (you name it) arguments for and against gene patenting. We (or at least I) have endured scientific arguments attempting to discern what is natural and what is man-made. We have endured moral arguments against gene patenting stating that we have an inalienable right to ownership of our bodies and our genomes. We have endured policy arguments for gene patenting prophesizing a decrease in medicine and scientific progress if gene patents are banned.
But all that aside: what if a ban on gene patents means no ban on the cure for cancer? On its face, it seems unlikely, I know. But, enter the slippery-slope argument put forth by pro-patent enthusiasts. This summer, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the Supreme Court will decide the fate of human gene patenting. In the meantime, institutions are making incredible progress in the field of cancer research. The well-known St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital just received a significant patent in this field. The patent covers genetically modified human immune cells, which destroy some of the most common forms of cancer cells. In its patent, St. Jude claims “[a]n isolated host cell . . . .” If the Supreme Court decides that the isolation step of human genes is insufficient to establish patent eligibility, will that make St. Jude’s isolated host cell equally unpatentable?
This seems like a rather weak argument that provides for pretty unreasonable results. St. Jude’s invention involves genetically modifying the host cell to enable them to make a certain protein. That protein then stimulates the human immune cell to attack and kill the cancer cells. This manufacture of the protein is not natural to the host cell. The host cell is clearly changed from its natural state in that it produces a new product. With regards to human genes, the genes themselves are not modified by humans. It is not clear that the isolated DNA has changed from its natural state, hence all the fuss and litigation.
Unlike gene patenting, the patenting of genetically modified cells is an issue that can be readily resolved under the standards put forth in U.S. patent law. However, policy arguments will only further support patentability. Who is going to do all the research for cancer treatment if there is no exclusive right patent right that can be used to recoup the required investment? This burden will fall on the public (i.e. your tax money) and on philanthropic gifts, and progress will not be up to current societal standards. It is good to be aware of the patentability trends as research progresses, but let’s not get carried away in an anti-patent frenzy: if the Supreme Court bans human gene patenting, it will be because the Court doesn’t believe there is a man-made aspect to it. That, at least, won’t be the issue for St. Jude’s patent.
Tagged with: patents
Recent Blog Posts
- The Consumer Review Fairness Act: Protecting Consumers Who Post Negative Reviews On The Internet
- Google Fiber Nashville Litigation
- Brexit and the Future of UK Sports
- The U.S. is Losing the Economic Drone War
- Your Emoji May Be Used Against You in a Court of Law
- FCC Passes New Regulations to Protect Your Personal Online Information
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution