I am speechless (and almost wordless).  How can allowing the patent of a human gene test *not* be implicit ownership of a human's genes and the right to manage them the best they can?

Best regards,
Steven.

There's some method to my madness, StevenAus. In one of my recent posts I alluded to this in my comments as I figured it was coming.

I wonder if the whole thing boils down to "lumpers" vs. "splitters" (no pun intended). I think the judges who decided in Myriad's favor were mistaken in their interpretation of "a distinct chemical entity".

That might end up allowing untold suffering to continue. Then again, it might be reversed.

While I think the company is of course justified in patenting any specific test they develop to locate these genes, trying to patent the genes themselves is as absurd as a company trying to patent silicon, or relativity, or algebra. You can't patent pure science. The entire premise of scientific research is that it must be shared freely, so that other scientists can build on it and review it.

Yet another reason why research needs to move back to academic settings and away from the private sector.

He has about as much right as me saying I did..in 2009.

Or software / code. But that is done all the time (dispite supreme court rulings against it).

What it basically means is that we do not 'own' our bodies.  We are no longer free citizens of a republic, but sources of 'molecules, and organs to be used as the power decide.  We are becoming a modern form of chattel, or indentured servants.  If I want medical care, I have to agree to give up rights on my body..and 'give them to a corp (-ie the rich).  Whats next?  China already schedules executions of convicted criminals to coincide with when his/her organs have all been sold and transport arranged.  This court ruling is another step in removing (ouch) our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the lethally-sharpened-pen-point of contract law that sides (or will side) with uber rich, and the uber corporations that are the primary instruments of the uber-rich. 

I'm not rich, does that make my life (or yours) worth less than Bush, cheny, or clinton or obama (or the uber rich they serve).  Yes, but only one molecule and organ at a time.

While I am not surprised at the moral revulsion you all have expressed, its time to wake up. I took a course on this exact subject at school last year. The truth is that patenting genetic code is all part of the research process. Patents make genetic code a commodity that can be traded and sold in the research market between corporations and research schools. Universities find and patent, then sell to pharmaceutical corporations to test drugs that are eventually distributed to hospitals in order to cure sick people. That is how capitalistic research works the most efficiently. I find it rather meaningless to squabble over body ownership when we lost that right decades ago. Emancipation ended ownership of bodies, not genetic research. 

Also, this is not the first case of genetic ownership. The courts have been trying to maintain the system for nearly two decades. If we couldn't patent genes, there would be a significant decrease in scientific research. I have to say that I am surprised none of you considered any of this before posting random analogies that don't really coincide. If you are fighting capitalism as a whole, fine take a moral high road on patenting. But if you are trapped into thinking you own any part of your body now, ask yourself exactly what you are not allowed to do with it and why.

The whole point is that the genetic code is not a commodity. It "belongs" to no one, nor should it. 

Secondly, here's an alternative (and equally unproven view): There would not be any decrease in scientific research. That's just some prof's thought. Here's mine: Research would increase in the academic sector and remain the same or increase in the private sector. Pharmaceuticals are a good example. Pharm co.'s own a patent for x years then goes generic. Has that decreased research? No. Profit is profit and can be attained without "ownership".

But no one, I repeat, no one owns any part of the human genetic code.

As for my ownership of my own body? Of course I do. The very fact that organ donation is voluntary proves that. No one can take your living organs without consent, nor your organs after your death without prior consent.

I don't think so. Your ownership of anything is limited by law to prevent harm to others by people who *think* they know what freedom means. Their definition is invariably "freedom without responsibility".

I don't think you understand the concept of patent ownership. Pharmacuedicals obtain a patent to test drugs in the exact same way they patent genetic code. All patents are limited ownership and over time become generic. A patent protects capitalistic rights on property. This is merely intellectual property. If I am a genetic research enterprise and find some valuable piece of genetic code, I patent it to prevent others from stealing my research. That is all ownership does. It is order and protection of assets. Isn't that why we all signed this social contract in the first place? 

As to ownership of the body, all ownership is, as you said, limited. You only have rights to a dead body in your example. You can not cause terminal injury to your body by selling or donating your organs while living. Blood too cannot be sold. If you check the fine print at a plasma bank, you are being paid for the service, not the actual blood you give. The point is that the government protects your body from you and others. There is only a very limited ownership. 

The point is that they did not create the genetic code. The genetic code was created either by a completely omnipotent deity or a completely nonsentient universe (and you're nuts if you think I'm going to get into that debate here). God obviously is not in need of us to recognize his/her/its/their right to a little chain of molecues, and nature has no brain, so the actual creator is either way above or way below the law. The gene was there before it was discovered, and the idea for it did not originate with the patent holder. Therefore, the concept of intellectual property is invalid.

Sean does have a point in that this company got to it first and expended quite some effort to do so- I think a better legal system would be closer to that applied to mining and land rights, since those also involve a preexisting natural resource that somebody worked to find (or got lucky and found). However, since this resource exists in many places as the same time and can be duplicated endlessly, it's really just a bad idea to try to fit it into any extant legal framework.

To establish "ownership" or original research,

all a scientist has to do is publish it.

The research can be yours provided the method is not patented.

To patent the genes or genome is ridiculous, however that way has now been paved. It must be stopped.

That is because blood is an organ and there may not be a "free market place" in organ sales to prevent murder for harvesting and idiot children from selling their organs for iPads.

The government has nothing to do with ownership of your body/organs except to prevent the free market (lol) from having you killed to harvest you.

DrJBHL,

Publishing a paper doesn't guarantee one's right to royalties on use of data collected by the scientific entity. You might get academic credit for your ingenuity but that won't pay the investors. 

Patenting a gene is not patenting the actual physical object. It is information that is used in genetic research. In a way I agree with Scoutdog. It is very akin to territory ownership by large corporations. This commodity is dependent on regulation to provide economic incentive to universities to continue research in genetics. That is capitalism. I wish they were doing it for the general benefit of humanity, but they have investors that demand a profit and scientists that value recognition for novelty. 

The government puts restrictions on your body. They have laws that limit your right of ownership. You cannot kill yourself for profit. If you tried to sell your live body to a hospital, it would be a violation of the government's control over your body. If it were truly owned it could be transferred and sold without legal repercussion. 

 

Scoutdog, 

It is not the creation of genetic code that is being claimed. Rather, it is the knowledge of a gene, a blueprint for cell production. The logic that god created all things, therefore nothing can be owned by anyone is exactly why we have separation of church and state. God has shown no interest in our knowledge of genes. It is purely a matter of allowing the market to provide incentive for universities. It has nothing to do with God, it is an internal matter.

The God part is actually irrelevant. I just put that in there because when I talk about evolutionary chaos and self-organization sometimes the religious right gets after me and derails the whole thread. As it happens, in this case it's irrelevant, because the secular, scientific explanation for how that gene got there was that it evolved that way thinks to a collection of blind natural forces, none of which have any claim to a patent either.

 

And really, the patent vs. land claim thing is more about verbiage than anything else. Both of 'em establish exclusive rights. Patents just imply creation, while claims imply finding.

Try that and you'll be in a rubber room very quickly. Has nothing to do with "government ownership" of your body. That's nonsense. If they "owned it" you wouldn't have any say at all... it's too paranoid to relate to as it involves a very basic misinterpretation.

I don't particularly care what sophistry and insanity is used to prevent research to possibly end various forms of human suffering. All that crap has to end, one way or another.

As for "ownership", apparently ethicists, lawyers, judges, MD's, reporters, etc. are all equally deluded about what's going on regarding gene patenting.

I'll continue to be deluded along with them, though I thank you for your efforts at helping me understand.

Really?  Can we call it the United States of Jafo now?  Has more pizzaz!

As to the article, I think you are in danger with your analogy.  I am not saying wrong, just in danger.  Let's examine the Columbus one.  First, let us discard Leif and the Clovis Man.  They indeed were here first, but they forgot to "report it".  In other words, they did not file a patent.  Not reporting it, means there was no history to disallow the patent prior to Columbus laying claim. 

Ok, so for argument sake, he either "discovered" it, or just found a route to it - but from his own ingenuity, and the beauty of his feat was he laid a map for others to follow (thus ensuring the lost land would not be lost again).  So do we give him credit?

for what?  Eventually someone else would have noticed those canoes coming over the horizon.  So we can throw out his hard work, and ingenuity.  He has no right to it since technically, the land was never really lost. 

Kind of like copyright.  The Mamas and Papas may have been the first to write and record "Monday. Monday", but eventually someone would have.  They did not create the words, and as the old saying goes "a million monkeys...." especially with computers these days.  So what right have they to their hard work and ingenuity?  it is not the fact that the land is there (or the words), but that someone found a use for them that no one had arrived at before.  Same as Gene Sequencing.  The Genes are there, so there is nothing new.  Or is there?

I know we disagree, and we are not going to agree here.  But you see the slippery slope.  It is not what is - it is what is done with it.  Notes are not being invented.  Words (for the most part) are not being invented.  Continents do not appear out of nothing (in man's time scale). And we all have genes.  Why should one profit from what god (gaia, or 2001 Aliens), or ancient society created?