Similar post here https://www.researchgate.net/post/US_Supreme_Court_rules_9-0_against_patenting_genes

Would be nice to hear more discussion on this topic. How are cDNAs any less "natural" than the genomic exon sequences from which they derive?

Well, as a wild-type gene is not easy, may be after alterations of some biotechnical applications/features might be possible, under circumstances that their are commercial product on the pipeline ... GFP is one example, after optimization for mammalian system.

So if this is allowed, then people who wish to do microarray or RNA-seq experiments would need to pay the patent filer (if I am a big pharma why don't I just file a patent for all cDNA for human, and get rich happily ever after without any more work?), since they would need to handle cDNA at some point in the experiment. This is capitalism gone crazy.

I think that genes should not be patented although a particular genetic (diagnostic/screening) test can be patented by the developer. It is a fallacy to claim that "finding" genes by determining their sequences even if they are "isolated" from the organism, would constitute enough novelty to warrant patenting. If genes (and other naturally occurring entities such as cells and organisms) were to be patentable, it would create monopolies over these life forms by a few individuals or corporations, and prevent access by others. The US Supreme court decision is a welcome step in the right direction.

By no means DNA sequences or genomic sequences that derive from DNA information should be patented. You can patent a biologic technics or process, on how to get to that information, but the information itself is Nature domain. For instance, you can patent a way to harvest the sun energy but you can not patent theSsun itself.

I agree with everyone posting here. Any naturally occuring DNA or sequence should not be patentable. The method to find the information can certainly be patentable. This kind of splitting hairs not only has consequences for the research being performed in the field, but also for the patients on the other side trying to benefit from genetic testing and related treatments.

There is no need to patent genes, it's enough to patent cDNA

Clearly naturally occurring sequence should not be patentable, but the use of sequence (or any other product of Nature) in a non-obvious way should be protected. Any rights Myriad should have would be vested in being able to distinguish cases and controls by comparison of isolated subject sequence with their proprietary database of variation. Myriad may well have been gouging, and this may not have been in the public interest, but that alone is not sufficient reason to revoke their legal rights.

Take a look at how Myriad is suing Ambry - post Supreme Court decision. http://www.patentdocs.org/2013/07/myriad-genetics-files-suit-against-ambry-genetics-for-genetic-diagnostic-testing-of-brca-genes.html

I believe, Knowledge should be free.... The way I support the GNU revolution, I am against Gene Patent and also any cDNA patent too... I don't actually see much difference between this two. Consented participation to some research work would be come a joke, cause, we may not be owner of my own genes then....

I have heard this argument used for cell lines as in the case of HeLa cells but never for DNA. I would say it should depend on if it has been modified from its natural state and i would say the differences between cDNA and DNA are definately substantial enough to make a distinction.

As far as patenting goes I would be for it in the case of modified sequences that can make a drastic difference to science but in any other case I would be against because of the effect this would have on research due to the financial aspect of the patent

It would seem to me that technically speaking, all PCR-based analyses fall under 'synthetic DNA' and therefore do not violate the law. I would think the court ruling doesn't invalidate PCR-based patents based on gene sequences, but rather it makes it easy for anyone to develop a test to get around a patent - all you need to do is add a variable, 'non-natural' sequence to the primer and you have a synthetic molecule that does not exist in nature and is different from Company X.

Es una pregunta y un tema bastante interesante, ya que hace un cruce de caminos entre la ética, la moral, la bioética, la ciencia, y la economía, eso sin contar lo que objetiva o subjetivamente pensemos las personas.

En mi opinión los genes podrían patentarse pero NO se deben patentar. Son algo universal y nos incumben a todas las criaturas vivientes. Quizá aquellos que sean creados en un laboratorio (creados más no descubiertos), tal vez, pero los que son parte actual de los seres vivientes no se deben patentar, no creo que los dejen patentar. Esta es una de las preguntas que debería hacerse a toda la humanidad, y que seamos todos quienes decidamos si queremos que se patenten los genes o no.

Pero igual, es una cuestión que se resolverá ética, moral e interdisciplinarmente, y no creo que se resuelva prontamente.

I n at e maIn issue here is one of wha a patent means/is. It is a potection o intelectual poperty. That is human ingenuity in the form of ideas, or techniques and equipment derived from those ideas. Naturally occuring DNA and RNA sequences are NOT human inventions. So cDNA seqences should not be patentable BUT the methods used to isolate relevant RNA and convert it to cDNA MIGHT be subject to pattent. So for Myriad the human BRCA sequences both of wild type and disease causing mutations should not (should never have been) be suject to patent, but the primers and protocols for testing for those sequuences in patients or populations should be subect to IP law. Otherwise every family with a particular mutation could (should?) sue Myriad and other testing companies for using ”their" sequences in the test designs - not a situation to be desired by anyone. On the other hand the creation and use o diseae related mutation frequency databases in risk calculations WOULD be a patentabble use of natural DNA sequences. Natural sequences whether represented as DNA, RNA or cDNA are discoveries so not subect to IP what we do with those discoveries IS.

I agree with the several answers above along the lines that DNA itself, whether 'naturally occurring' or cDNA, should not be able to be patented, but a process of obtaining cDNA should be patentable.

That leads me to wonder though, what would constitute a process for obtaining cDNA that would be patentable? If it was some really novel method then yes, but methods for extracting and reverse-transcribing mRNA are very standard and in the public domain. I'm not sure if you could really justify patenting a primer, since the sequence is known, it's just a case of finding one that works, so you can't really call that an invention, and the idea of using primers to amplify specific regions of DNA would already be covered by Roche's patent on PCR, I would have thought.

Anything available in nature must not be claimed as someone's personal property and should not get patented. However, if some changes have been made experimentally e.g recombinant DNA sequences and methodology involved in producing it can be considered to be patented.

Some answer show an emotional component. Reminds me about "teaching or not evolution in high schools". To me this a prehistoric topic. It is clearly beyond any doubt that genes ( and many other natural processes) are not prone to patent. It is inmoral...., as simple as that.. But a highly capitalistic society still think that they can find a "gold fountain" trying to patent genes or natural genetic processes. Come on !!!

May be from the inside some entrepeneurs do not see the inmorality of the issue. But from outside I claely see that this is like a California devastating non-sense gold rush

Gene is a naturally occurring entity and so patenting it has no meaning . But the use of a gene in a modified form or a natural form for any application in human or plant health can be patented. So any utilization of the gene that was not obvious should be encouraged for patenting but not just the sequences or assembling of the correcto exons of a gene

Patenting Application /procedure/or any methodology must be acceptable to entire community. Real problem is with patenting a gene as an entity, what ever be the form. Be it DNA, RNA, cDNA or may be altogether a artificially synthesized primer or oligonucleotide. I think the entire debate is centering to this point.

Natural genes should NOT be patented. Patents are pertinent just for technical procedures. Otherwise, one might wish to patent the sun...

I was pleased with the decision. Firstly, One of the ways for Science to advance is through the free sharing of knowledge and ideas. This respects and protects that. Secondly, patenting genes is illogical when we cannot patent other part of the human body. Can you imagine patenting a heart valve as it existed in its natural form? Thirdly, it is not like private industry cannot still make money: they can patent tests, and instruments, which government scientists can buy and use for Scientific advancement. They just cannot patent the right to use knowledge.

The responder above who sad that if the government care they should pay for genetic tests: they do. At the prenatal stage, and thought the lifespan.

Personally, I am happy to hear that the Supreme Court made a logical decision. Natural selection and evolution "invented" the gene alleles that occur in nature. These naturally occurring forms CANNOT be patented and should not be as no human invented them. Many forget the Supreme Court made a clear distinction in saying that man-made genes (think the BT gene in BT corn) CAN be patented, so there is plenty of room for innovation and money to be made. The objection from industry about loss of money and stifling research is basically unfounded whining. It is a PR campaign attempting to gain public sympathy where none is deserved. Aside from patenting novel genes the Supreme Court decision benefits companies as they do not have to pay royalties on natural genes to other companies. Besides, the royalties are not where the money is. The medical diagnostic tests, devices, and drugs, which are still protected by patents, are the big money makers.

"Can genes can be patented?", as asked on the top?

Depends on the laws of each land, of course, as well as international law. In the USA, as many wrote above, it is not possible anymore. It's not possible in Brazil either. I don't know about other countries.

I suspect that cDNA (or a protein sequence) straight out of an organism would be in the obvious category. It is a naturally occurring product, therefore it is not an invention, no matter how much work it might have taken to get or characterize them.

What used to be possible, and I think it still is, in the USA is to patent gene annotations for a specific use. I am part of a few patents like that.

Gene annotation is OK for patenting as there is some innovation in finding the different parts of a gene but a gene per se is naturally occurring and patenting the same is not in the public interest. One has the liberty to use the gene in whatever way he/she likes and put to novel use which definitely is patentable.

The idea of patenting of life forms or naturally occurring entities such as genes has been in the realm of public debate since over 2 decades now. After the human genome was decoded, there has been a rush to patent genes and gene sequences by private corporations (appropriately termed "the genome gold rush"), evidently because of anticipated profits arising from their application in the clinic. There are two issues here- first, as others have rightly pointed out, finding out sequences of naturally occurring genes, does not come under the category of 'novel invention'. The Supreme court decision was apt in this regard. However, the same consideration would also apply to cDNA as this is basically a copy of the gene sequence produced in vitro using very routine methods. So that too, fails the test of novelty. Second, except in a few disorders involving well-defined genetic changes, medical application or benefit from gene sequences is still a grey area for most human diseases. The patenting rush may be getting ahead of itself. The decision of the US Supreme Court is certainly a welcome step to ensure freedom of research and prevent private enclosure of natural entities such as DNA.

Anything exist in nature including genes can not be claimed as anybody's patent until major changes are being made. However it depends on the rules of a land but my opinion about it is very clear that the genes ca not be patented.

Over 4000 genes had already been patented in the USA and this was having a significant impact on basic research with many projects being abandoned for fear of patent violation. The supreme court ruling invalidates these patents. It is welcome news for taxpayers who funded much of the background research that went into the patents, only to see the potential payback fall into private hands... and then having to pay outrageous prices for monopolized privately owned diagnostic DNA tests! cDNA is patentable, but cDNA sequences derived directly from genomic DNA sequences will fail the test of obviousness, one of the hurdles that all patent applications must pass successfully to become issued patents. That amounts to cDNA derived from RNA not being patentable. Novel engineered cDNAs will certainly be eligible. This supreme court decision promotes innovation and competition and is in everybody's best interests, not just the rich biotech/pharma industry.

A quick synopsis in The Scientist:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36076/title/Gene-Patents-Decision--Everybody-Wins/

Anything that is novel, innovative could be patented. Under this definition the naturally existing genes or their cDNAs cannot be patented but their novel application in medicine or any other field can be patented

As I see it the Supreme Court's decision was an "end around" to allow the patenting of genes by calling cDNA "inventions." We all know this is not the case, but on the other hand it will provide incentives for the Biotech industry to produce and sell diagnostic kits which insurance companies will cover. So it ends up as a win-win situation for patients, companies, and inventors. We just need to wait for insurance companies to join the crowd....

My one concern is that the claims for any given cDNA should only be issued for narrow uses. Otherwise they could be used to block further research for other disease indications.

With all that said, patent law in biological contexts needs major reform!

As Ellen rightly put it the patenting of even cDNA should be on a case by case for a limited period so that it is not misused or others are prevented from coming up with better diagnostic kits or even curing aids

Could not agree more with justice Thomas. Genes are a kin to scientific law and nobody as direct ownership of the entity. If we were able to patent genes to many moral implications may arise. However, cloned DNA is the product of ones work and scientific inquiry.

Genes in original without any change can not be patented but after isolation if certain beneficial modifications and alternations is done it should be get patented and there must not be any problem in that.

In this era, it is possible to make synthetic protein that would have therapeutic significance. So, gene that encode this protein is completely synthetic and those not exists in nature, and it is not cDNA.

I think your answer is yes. You can google the brc1 gen involved in breast cancer it was patented for years but right now seems to be striked down by superem court .

Personally i think it is not a good idea to patent a gen or even a cell lines.

As per Supreme court order, genes (original - be it of human, animal or plant) can not be patented. But if there is variation in the gene sequences due to mutation certainly that particular mutated (partially or completely) of the gene segment can be patented. No difficulty in that.

In my opinion, naturally occurring genes or any genetic material cant be patented. But if someone has added novel innovation using their own mind then they can apply for patent for mutant gene or cDNA. There are several cases of patenting genes in the past, but it is ethically it is wrong if someone has not modified it.