Americans have grown accustomed to hearing the Supreme Court address some of the most contentious issues in our country. Lately, of course, gay marriage and LGBT rights are the latest hot spot for controversy. However, one case the court is now hearing without much fanfare could have huge implications for medical research, healthcare and our understanding of scientific research.
An NPR article from April 15 explains that in April, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments surrounding one central question: Can human genes be patented?
“Myriad Genetics, a Utah biotechnology company, discovered and isolated two genes – BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 – that are highly associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer,” the article read.
By patenting these genes, Myriad Genetics would have a 20-year monopoly over use of their discovery, including using them for research, diagnostics and treatment.
As one might expect, critics have lambasted this attempt to patent human genes as an attempt to impede scientific research, cancer treatment development and the progress of medical diagnostics.
While it’s easy to dismiss Myriad Genetics’ attempt at a patent as greedy or self-serving, one must be sympathetic to its concerns. After all, there are roughly 20,000 human genes, and isolating those genes is incredibly difficult. Moreover, identifying the functions of these individual genes takes much time, research and ingenuity.
Gregory Castanias, Myriad Genetics’ lawyer, has compared the corporation’s feat to finding “a single grain of sand” hidden inside the Empire State Building.
Patents serve a great purpose: to stimulate and facilitate innovation. Individuals and companies expend massive amounts of intellectual capital, resources, time and energy into genomic research. Cracking such a complicated code, as Myriad Genetics did, is the product of tremendous labor.
Nonetheless, critics of the corporation’s patent claim that while it was difficult to find, the genes they found are still a part of nature and therefore cannot be patented.
Regardless of legal questions, the consequences of allowing a gene to be patented seem far too dire.
“Myriad’s patents also have a chilling effect on genomics research because the company’s tight control over BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results has prevented scientists from accessing useful data about genes and associated traits,” pointed out an April 15 article in the LA Times.
The issue here is obvious. If patents that are supposed to stimulate innovation are preventing it then clearly we need to go back to the drawing board. We need to radically rethink how we incentivize research and intellectual progress.
Moreover, one cannot help but be bothered by the more human impact of a fully-fledged patent, which could restrain research to alleviate and ease diseases that cause suffering for so many.
The LA Times article quoted Dr. Robert Nussbaum of University of California San Francisco: “It’s not just an economic issue, it’s a moral issue. I care for a lot of patients with hereditary diseases.”
The case, now before the Supreme Court, provides a unique opportunity to reflect on what is clearly a case of making a commodity of the human body, and what that means for the future of health care.
