http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202439218594&Boston_Patent_Group_Joins_Long_List_of_Amici_in_Controversial_Gene_Patent_Case#
You can't patent, much less actually MAKE MONEY from naturally occurring matter on earth can you? The answer friends, is YES! Biotech agricultural seed companies (such as Monsanto) have been doing it for over a decade, and the current case in question is not breaking new ground either.
In reviewing this article on Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the plaintiff (represented by the ACLU) claims Myriad Genetics (owners of the patent on genes linked to ovarian and breast cancer) patent on seven human genes is impeding researcher's abilities to study treatments for these widespread diseases, and is infringing upon First Amendment rights.
Where is the psychology in this? Well reader, I'm glad you've asked. As the scientific community continues to provide evidence for heritability and genetic linkages between psychological disorders and our DNA, one does not have to spread their "thinkin' wings" too far to see a similar problem for psychologists in the future.
Imagine you and your graduate students have isolated the human gene for schizophrenia, and are hot on the trail of a radical new treatment. WHOA, WHOA, WAIT A SECOND! Jim's Genetics Inc. has already patented that gene; and if you want to continue your research, you'll need to pay a hefty royalty to Jim, his boss "The Man", and tell your grad students to start studying Freud again.
Is allowing the patenting of products of nature good practice? Is it fair for a corporation to claim they own the code that builds a kidney? You'd best pick a side friend, because its not comin', its already here.
You can't patent, much less actually MAKE MONEY from naturally occurring matter on earth can you? The answer friends, is YES! Biotech agricultural seed companies (such as Monsanto) have been doing it for over a decade, and the current case in question is not breaking new ground either.
In reviewing this article on Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the plaintiff (represented by the ACLU) claims Myriad Genetics (owners of the patent on genes linked to ovarian and breast cancer) patent on seven human genes is impeding researcher's abilities to study treatments for these widespread diseases, and is infringing upon First Amendment rights.
Where is the psychology in this? Well reader, I'm glad you've asked. As the scientific community continues to provide evidence for heritability and genetic linkages between psychological disorders and our DNA, one does not have to spread their "thinkin' wings" too far to see a similar problem for psychologists in the future.
Imagine you and your graduate students have isolated the human gene for schizophrenia, and are hot on the trail of a radical new treatment. WHOA, WHOA, WAIT A SECOND! Jim's Genetics Inc. has already patented that gene; and if you want to continue your research, you'll need to pay a hefty royalty to Jim, his boss "The Man", and tell your grad students to start studying Freud again.
Is allowing the patenting of products of nature good practice? Is it fair for a corporation to claim they own the code that builds a kidney? You'd best pick a side friend, because its not comin', its already here.
Leave a comment