This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented | US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented |
(35 minutes later) | |
Human genes may not be patented, but artificially copied DNA can be claimed as intellectual property, the US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously. | |
The court quashed patents held by a Utah-based firm on two genes believed linked to breast and ovarian cancer. | |
The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting. | The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting. |
The US pharmaceutical industry had warned any blanket ban on gene patents would jeopardise huge investment in gene research and therapies. | |
Thursday's compromise ruling, which had been urged by the Obama administration, is widely expected to shield existing patents involving synthetic molecules known as complementary DNA. | |
Shares in the company affected, Myriad Genetics, rose after the decision was published. | |
'Different chemical structure' | |
The legal battle was prompted by a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 2009 that centred on whether companies should be able to patent genes. | |
Currently, researchers and private companies work to isolate genes in order to use them in tests for gene-related illnesses, and in emerging gene therapies. | |
The genes in question are linked to breast and ovarian cancer, and Myriad Genetics developed a test to look for mutations in those genes that might increase the risk of developing cancer. | |
The company, based in Salt Lake City, argued that the genes patented were "isolated" by them, making them products of human ingenuity and therefore patentable. | |
But the ACLU argued that genes are products of nature, and therefore cannot be patented under US laws. | |
In 2010 a New York federal court ruled in favour of the ACLU. | |
But an appeals court on two separate occasions sided with Myriad. It said DNA isolated from the human body had a "markedly different chemical structure" from other human genetic material. | |
Universities and medical research firms have been able to claim intellectual property over human genes for nearly three decades. | |
According to researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in the US, patents now cover some 40% of the human genome. |