Another example of someone not understanding the biotech or diagnostics industry. First, this Myriad Genetics example is a known case-study as to the tangible and ethical failures of genetic testing, it is taught to graduate students (i.e. the future leaders) as a failure and is used as a learning tool. This is not the industry standard nor is this how most diagnostic biotech companies operate (which is failed to be mentioned in the article). Genetic-based diagnostics are a fuzzy area, not black'n'white. Even with thousands of patient data generated through expensive trials, Myriad was never able to link much clinical utility for their BRAC tests, so for example, they can say "you are 25% more likely to develop breast cancer" is that certain enough for someone to run out and have their breasts removed?

That being said, the need to protect your IP is crucial for having a successful biotech company able to innovate new diagnostics and improve upon existing tests. Without the promise of exclusivity, there is no incentive for anyone...a company, a university, a foundation, to research and develop new tests. Would you rather have absolutely no test at all?

another example of someone not understanding the law -

I will repeat from the article -

The United States government first granted patents on genes about 30 years ago to scientists who were able to "blueprint" the structure of a specific gene. Today, patents are attached to parts of about 20 percent of all human genes, including some that play a role in colon cancer and certain skin cancers. They last 20 years and are held by various private companies, foundations and universities, giving them the sole power to develop, administer and interpret tests for mutations.

This is a legal issue. No one should be given sole ownership of a gene or gene series to the exclusion of any one else who might want to develop a better test.

You obviously do not understand the difference between owning the test procedure and owning the gene or gene series.

@JJD - SHUSH! Don't give them any more ideas....

I too find it absurd that someone can own the rights to a part of me they did not think of, design or create.

I'm glad someone didn't think to patent the electron, water or oxygen.

Not really Kevin, all they did was level the playing field which previously muzzled corporations but allowed full access to to the political process for unions and anti corporation organizations.

This does not mean we need a single payer system. Since when did the government do a good efficient job with any system it runs? I think the word you are looking for is "never." What is needed is regulations that prevent this sort of monopoly. A single payer system wouldn't prevent a company from telling the government, "sorry, you gotta go through me to do the test. I still have the patent, and you can't legally do the test without my consent." Could you imagine the the lawsuit if the government broke patent law? Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on top of the trillions we would waste in a single payer system.

OK, so go show us how many single payer systems have created or discovered any major breakthroughs of medical technology in the last 30 years. When single payer systems can show parity or better rates of improvement over the current US system, THEN I might agree with you. Until then, your opinion is not the correct answer to the problem.

What a truly unintelligent post. This has nothing to do with medical compensation which is what a single payor system is all about. Seriously, are some of you people so uneducated and blinded that when anything negative about a certain aspect of the medical field comes up that you will always say single payor will make things better even though is has nothing to do with it? Unbelievable.

Mitchell

Mitchell-512733

Agreed
Glad you pointed this out. I read it twice thinking I missed something.

What this particular company's doing does need remedied though.

As for the money, Who would do the research for free. Not me. Have to make a living.

Single payer system or no... that has nothing to do with it. Ownership of genes is ridiculous, it's patents that's the issue.

It makes sense because Americans allowed it to happen. "We the people" need to look out after our own interests, but we don't bother listening.

And at the time when this stuff gets formulated, there always are people who comment on the possible future negative repercussions. But then we don't seem to like listening to "Glass half empty" people, but only whine when their predictions come true.

'We the people' need to remove the mega CORP scum that distort the laws to suit their greed...lead, tar, feathers, ropes, guillotines would help us 'take care of them'...

Sean had it right, The test would not be available AT ALL if this company had not spent the money, so now you want to deprive them of any payback on their efforts.

George, your genes are yours to do with as you please, but this company should be able to "own" the test they deveolped; at least for the patent time-frame.

Ed - This is straight from the article,

The United States government first granted patents on genes about 30 years ago to scientists who were able to "blueprint" the structure of a specific gene. Today, patents are attached to parts of about 20 percent of all human genes, including some that play a role in colon cancer and certain skin cancers. They last 20 years and are held by various private companies, foundations and universities, giving them the sole power to develop, administer and interpret tests for mutations.

You are correct, in that if a test is developed the company may have patent rights to the test, but what is happening is that patents are being issues on genes and gene series, thus preventing any one else from developing a better test. This is wrong.

Empty threat George, cancer has always been a fact in my family. The kind that if you let a doctor treat you, you will only live six months instead of a couple of years.

And I was telling you that you need to quit being a second string bench warmer if you don't like how your laws are formulated.

It's always easy to attack the messenger and get that warm, glowy feeling as you sit there doing nothing.

And then whine and complain when things aren't working the way you think they should because you couldn't be arsed to take action to direct your representatives to act in your best interests.

had this argument the other night with my roommate (also in biotech). First, this is a result of the biotech diagnostic industry, not drug/pharmaceutical. Most of the researchers that receive the donations you speak of are non-profit foundations and universities. Those researchers working for corporations use their own R&D dollars they obtained from selling previous products they researched and developed. Patenting information does NOT make it secret, you can go look up any patent in the US right now and read all about it. If the cure for cancer was found, it would not be held secret, that is A) too big of a humanity/societal impact and B) whoever found it wants their name attached and to profit from it. A company would LOVE to find the cure for cancer, they can first charge a hefty (if not insane) premium for the miracle cure and at the same time make every single competitor treatment on the market obsolete. The PR move would be huge..."Company X invents cure for cancer" no one would want to cover that up or make it secret...too much fame and fortune to be made!

This is how business people think...they can rake in many many more billions from patenting a single cure than every other competitor company out there combined that just "hides the symptoms" as you put it. It's the Ferrari vs. Ford argument....one hand-made super expensive car is more valuable than 100 off-the-assembly line.

again more ranting from someone who does not fully understand the biotech, pharmaceutical, or diagnostics industries. You gave them permission (and gave up your ownership) when you agreed to take the genetic diagnostic test. When you willingly submit your blood or saliva sample, there is a form you sign waiving your claim to ownership. The company can do whatever it wants with your sample and the information it obtains from testing your sample.

Don't want that? Don't take the test. Especially Myriad's test, their results do not provide much clinical utility anyway. But there are many new genetic tests from other companies, testing other genes, out today which do provide utility...and they have the same ownership issues. It's also the same for traditional diagnostic tests i.e. throat swab/culture, pee test for drugs. The Dr. office or insurance company owns those results, not you, you submitted them voluntarily.

Volunarily? I think there is a duress issue involved in "voluntarily" signing the consent form.

I might not understand but from the article, the woman tried to get an additional test done but was told that that gene sequence was patented. Now tell me, how can a gene sequence be patented? Yes, they studied it but others can also study it and come up with another test to find out more info. I don't understand how the US government can say yes to something this stupid. DNA is apart of us all and no one should have the right to patent it. Like the one guy said, if someone was to patent oxygen does that mean no one can breath? Mmm, I haven't given anyone a sample but does that mean I can't go to who I chose and have a test done? If I want to find out if I can get something, I don't want to wait a couple of years while a corporation who owns the right to my DNA decides it will test it. I think that it should own the right to the test that the company develops not the DNA strand it studied. I mean let others study the same strand and come up with additional test. This will bring down the price and prevent a monopoly on the tests. This is called competition.

Robert, I think that you are providing the very reason why the gene sequence is patented. If competitors study the same gene sequence they are competing with the owner of the patent. Patents were implemented for the sole purpose of preventing competition for a short time so the developer can make up development costs and make some profit on the invention. That is exactly as it should be, unless of course you'd like to see innovation go down the drain.

How would it stop innovation? I think that compitition would cause even more. After all, the better method would get the most use.

Ray, go check and see which party the lawyers and ABA support the most. Also, research who is sitting on the courts giving the corporations the rights they have. Then look to see which party is getting the most financial support from the bio-tech industry.

When you find all that out, come rant about the conservatives. I have done that research, and the Democrats are playing you like a drum, telling you how evil corporations are while they take the corporations money and protect them in the Congress and court system.