The End of Patents on Human Genes?

John Schwartz and Andrew Pollack report in The New York Times:

A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property.

Judge Sweet…ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” because they involved a “law of nature.” He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

The case could have far-reaching implications. About 20 percent of human genes have been patented, and multibillion-dollar industries have been built atop the intellectual property rights that the patents grant.

I’ve always thought that the patenting of the human genome is kind of insane, and I’ve never understood the legal reasoning behind it.  I think this is a wonderful decision on the part of Judge Sweet, and I hope her decision is upheld.  I feel that there are significant ethical problems in patenting a naturally occurring thing – namely, something essential to our physical identity.  It’s like patenting a kidney.  How would you feel if the company that held a patent on kidneys could make money off of your organs?  That company would possess some legal power over a part of your body – a power you wouldn’t share.  It’s these instruments of control that scare me (instruments including the Quick Response codes and RFID signals my colleague Trisha Jain discusses in this post), and I hope that this decision signals a push back against them.

–Aaron Bekemeyer