Angelina Jolie's tits.

[hadespussercats]

I've heard about 23andme. I'm not sure why she took the more expensive test (close to $3000, from what I read.) Is it more precise?

Myriad Genetics' test may be more accurate, and it may also identify other, less common mutations to the gene. More importantly, it's considered a medical diagnostic test, which no one else can offer due to Myriad's patent on the gene. The patent is questionable, but 23andme isn't in the medical business so I don't think they're challenging it.

Aaah. Yes, now that you mention it I remember reading about the patent-- some people think it's unconscionable for a company to have a monopoly on a medical diagnostic test.

[JimC]

I've heard about 23andme. I'm not sure why she took the more expensive test (close to $3000, from what I read.) Is it more precise?

Myriad Genetics' test may be more accurate, and it may also identify other, less common mutations to the gene. More importantly, it's considered a medical diagnostic test, which no one else can offer due to Myriad's patent on the gene. The patent is questionable, but 23andme isn't in the medical business so I don't think they're challenging it.

Aaah. Yes, now that you mention it I remember reading about the patent-- some people think it's unconscionable for a company to have a monopoly on a medical diagnostic test.

It's an ethical minefield, patent law and gene technology...

On the one hand, you have the argument that, without the incentive of future profits from a resource they control, companies are not going to invest in the whole technology.

On the other hand, monopolies are uncompetitive, and potentially bad news for consumers, as well as locking up scientific knowledge...

[hadespussercats]

I don't have any answers to that one. Except, I wonder if opening up to competition really would destroy profits, or if it would just make them more moderate. But I don't know.

[Svartalf]

I started drinking green tea daily. That's an affordable way to stave off cancer I heard. Antioxidants and such. And maybe it's just nonsense.

Doesn't it give you the jitters? Says the woman devoted to her venti iced coffee...

Why would it do that?

Boatloads of caffeine in green tea.

Not that much, even if black has less, contrary to popular belief.

[hadespussercats]

I started drinking green tea daily. That's an affordable way to stave off cancer I heard. Antioxidants and such. And maybe it's just nonsense.

Doesn't it give you the jitters? Says the woman devoted to her venti iced coffee...

Why would it do that?

Boatloads of caffeine in green tea.

Not that much, even if black has less, contrary to popular belief.

Yeah, I found that out. Good to know, though-- even if green tea isn't my favorite.

[Svartalf]

Which is funny, since I still prefer a robust black tea in the morning, and more delicate green in the afternoon or early evening. If it's really late and I want to sleep, I'll go for the caff free stuff like oolong or smoked sou chong.

[En_Route]

I've heard about 23andme. I'm not sure why she took the more expensive test (close to $3000, from what I read.) Is it more precise?

Myriad Genetics' test may be more accurate, and it may also identify other, less common mutations to the gene. More importantly, it's considered a medical diagnostic test, which no one else can offer due to Myriad's patent on the gene. The patent is questionable, but 23andme isn't in the medical business so I don't think they're challenging it.

Aaah. Yes, now that you mention it I remember reading about the patent-- some people think it's unconscionable for a company to have a monopoly on a medical diagnostic test.

It's an ethical minefield, patent law and gene technology...

On the one hand, you have the argument that, without the incentive of future profits from a resource they control, companies are not going to invest in the whole technology.

On the other hand, monopolies are uncompetitive, and potentially bad news for consumers, as well as locking up scientific knowledge...

Big Pharma is corrupt to the core. While some form of IP rights are needed for it to be viable as a sector, it is lamentably under- regulated.

[Seth]

I've heard about 23andme. I'm not sure why she took the more expensive test (close to $3000, from what I read.) Is it more precise?

Myriad Genetics' test may be more accurate, and it may also identify other, less common mutations to the gene. More importantly, it's considered a medical diagnostic test, which no one else can offer due to Myriad's patent on the gene. The patent is questionable, but 23andme isn't in the medical business so I don't think they're challenging it.

Aaah. Yes, now that you mention it I remember reading about the patent-- some people think it's unconscionable for a company to have a monopoly on a medical diagnostic test.

It's an ethical minefield, patent law and gene technology...

On the one hand, you have the argument that, without the incentive of future profits from a resource they control, companies are not going to invest in the whole technology.

On the other hand, monopolies are uncompetitive, and potentially bad news for consumers, as well as locking up scientific knowledge...

A patent is not a monopoly, and it only lasts 7 years anyway.

What bugs me is that companies are being allowed to patent a HUMAN GENE. Not just the process for detecting that gene, which would be valid in my eyes, but THE GENE ITSELF, thus making it unlawful for anyone else to EVEN TRY to find a DIFFERENT way to detect and analyze that gene.

The gene itself is NOT an invention. It's a natural object. The particular method of FINDING or ANALYZING that gene is patentable, but not the DNA sequence itself.

What they are trying to patent, and therefore lock up, is the RESULT of their research, in other words they are trying to keep anyone from using the INFORMATION that a specific gene or set of genes has a specific purpose or action on the body (or plant). I don't think that information is patentable in the first place. It might be copyrightable, and it could certainly be held as a trade secret, like the formula for CocaCola has been kept secret for more than a hundred years, but a patent? The gene wasn't "invented." I doubt the lab procedures for finding and marking the gene are patentable either, since the process is a matter of public knowledge. What's at stake is the data on what the gene does and which gene it is. And that's not patentable.

What these companies should be doing is to keep the data on which gene it is and how it affects the body as a trade secret and simply produce a patented TEST for a particular disease. THAT they can do. But anyone else who can find the gene, figure out what it does, and create a DIFFERENT test for the same disease can patent THAT test.

But the gene itself?

No way.

[hadespussercats]

What bugs me is that companies are being allowed to patent a HUMAN GENE. Not just the process for detecting that gene, which would be valid in my eyes, but THE GENE ITSELF, thus making it unlawful for anyone else to EVEN TRY to find a DIFFERENT way to detect and analyze that gene.

The gene itself is NOT an invention. It's a natural object. The particular method of FINDING or ANALYZING that gene is patentable, but not the DNA sequence itself.

Yes.

[Warren Dew]

I've heard about 23andme. I'm not sure why she took the more expensive test (close to $3000, from what I read.) Is it more precise?

Myriad Genetics' test may be more accurate, and it may also identify other, less common mutations to the gene. More importantly, it's considered a medical diagnostic test, which no one else can offer due to Myriad's patent on the gene. The patent is questionable, but 23andme isn't in the medical business so I don't think they're challenging it.

Aaah. Yes, now that you mention it I remember reading about the patent-- some people think it's unconscionable for a company to have a monopoly on a medical diagnostic test.

As with Seth, I would have no problem with a patent on the test. They spent a lot of time figuring out how to use Sanger sequencing and polymerase chain reaction to test for mutations in that specific gene, and that kind of investment needs to be rewarded.

My problem is that the patent claims all rights to the gene itself. That means that in a few years, when companies like mine will likely be able to provide a full genome sequence for $1000 or so using entirely different technologies, it will be illegal for us - or for your doctor - to compare that sequence to known healthy or mutant BCRA1 gene sequences and tell you what the risks are. That definitely stifles new technology.

Big Pharma is corrupt to the core. While some form of IP rights are needed for it to be viable as a sector, it is lamentably under- regulated.

Big pharma is no doubt corrupt, but regulations are the problem, not the solution. While some regulation is needed, most regulations - Obamacare for example - are largely written by big pharma and other large commercial interests to stymie the new competitors that would naturally arise in a free market.

A patent is not a monopoly, and it only lasts 7 years anyway.

21 years.

[En_Route]

Warren, I don't think we differ about regulation. He problem is that Big Bad Pharma has indeed captured the regulators and they are allowed literally to get away with murder.

[Seth]

Fucking A! Three cheers for the Supreme Court!

Justices rule human genes cannot be patented
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 4:31 p.m. EDT June 13, 2013
Supreme Court decision is a win for women with genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers, as well as geneticists and researchers who had criticized a Utah company's exclusive patent.
Breast cancer gene

(Photo: Erich Schlegel for USA TODAY)
Story Highlights

Decision frees up research into genetic risk for breast, ovarian cancer
Justices say DNA that goes beyond gene extraction can be patented
Only cases on race, same-sex marriage loom as more far-reaching

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a decision with both immediate benefits for some breast and ovarian cancer patients and long-lasting repercussions for biotechnology research.

The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company's patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions.

But the court held out a lifeline to Myriad Genetics, the company with an exclusive patent on the isolated form of genes that can foretell an increased genetic risk of cancer. The justices said it can patent a type of synthesized DNA that goes beyond extracting the genes from the body.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the decision for a unanimous court. "Myriad did not create anything," Thomas said. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."

The decision will allow other scientists and laboratories to provide genetic diagnostic testing, now that the patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes themselves has been lifted. That should lead to lower costs and greater access.

"It is splendid news for patients, for physicians, for scientists and for common sense," Mary-Claire King, the geneticist who in 1990 discovered the abnormality on chromosome 17 that proved to be the breast cancer gene, told USA TODAY. "The marketplace will now be open."

Myriad emphasized the bright side of the decision for the company — that cDNA, which is not naturally occurring, remains patentable. As a result, it said, 24 patents containing more than 500 valid claims remain in effect.

"More than 250,000 patients rely upon our BRACAnalysis test annually, and we remain focused on saving and improving peoples' lives and lowering overall health care costs," said Peter Meldrum, the company's president and CEO.

THOUSANDS OF PATENTS INVALIDATED

The complex scientific case was perhaps the most important on the high court's calendar other than its more celebrated cases involving same-sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action.

And unlike those cases, which are expected to divide the court sharply along ideological lines, the controversial concept of gene patenting gave all nine justices something to agree on.

The decision was based on past patent cases before the high court in which the justices ruled that forces of nature, as opposed to products of invention, are not patent-eligible.

"Jonas Salk once said that the polio vaccine could not be patented -- it belonged to the public," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., a microbiologist and leader on genetic issues. "I am pleased the Supreme Court has applied this same standard to all genetic material."

Since 1984, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted more than 40,000 patents tied to genetic material. About one-fourth of the 22,000 human genes have been patented -- patents that are now invalidated. That could open up competition in genetic testing for diseases ranging from Duchenne muscular dystrophy to inheritable heart arrhythmia.

Still, the bulk of the biotechnology industry's products are not affected by the ruling, said Lawrence Brody of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Armed with its patents, Myriad has tested more than 1 million women since the late 1990s for mutations that often lead to breast and ovarian cancer. Most women who want testing must pay its price — $3,340 for the breast cancer analysis and $700 for an additional test that picks up a genetic link in about 10% of women who test negative the first time. Myriad officials say about 95% of its patients receive insurance coverage, often without co-payments, so that most patients pay only about $100.

Myriad and a broad array of industry trade groups argued that without patent protection, research and development would dry up. Doctors, geneticists, women's health groups and cancer patients contended that competition would lower prices, improve outcomes and lead to more discoveries.

"The court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, which filed the original lawsuit. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them.

"Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing, and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued," Park said.

COST OF TESTING SLASHED BY 75 PERCENT

Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist who became the last remaining plaintiff in the case, heralded the decision as "thrilling" and predicted it would slash the cost of breast and ovarian cancer testing for women with a genetic risk from $4,000 to less than $1,000. That will make it more available to lower-income women and those without quality health insurance, he said.

As if to make Ostrer a prophet, by late afternoon a Houston-based genetics testing company called DNATraits, a division of Gene by Gene, said it would offer the test for $995.

Karuna Jaggar, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, hailed the decision as one that put "patients' health before corporate profits."

"This ruling makes a huge and immediate difference for women with a known or suspected inherited risk of breast cancer," Jaggar said. "And it is a tremendous victory for all people everywhere. The Supreme Court has taken a significant stand to limit the rights of companies to own human genes by striking down Myriad's monopoly."

The two sides had battled to a draw in lower courts: A federal district court in New York sided with the patent's challengers, while a divided court of appeals that handles patent cases ruled for the company.

During oral argument in April, the court was presented with opposite interpretations of Myriad's contribution to genetic research. Christopher Hansen, the lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the patent's challengers, said Myriad had invented "nothing." Myriad's attorney, Gregory Castanias, said the company created "a new molecule that had never been known to the world."

The justices generally agreed that Myriad deserved credit for its process of isolating the gene and its use — but not for the gene itself. "In isolation, it has no value," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "It's just nature sitting there."

Thomas' decision was slightly more diplomatic. "We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent-eligible ... simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material," he said.

The compromise that emerged Thursday was evident during that 65-minute debate. Several of the more conservative justices said a complete denial of patent rights could jeopardize investments by other biotechnology companies — and that could limit progress on a range of research, from agriculture to the environment.

University of Michigan professor Shobita Parthasarathy said that compromise is significant, since scientists still must contend with gene patents. "This will likely continue to have a deleterious effect on genetics research and access to health care in the United States," she said.

Contributing: Dan Vergano and Liz Szabo in McLean, Va.

[hadespussercats]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now companies might decide there's no profit in designer jeans.

[pErvinalia]

good news.