Sixty years ago, scientists first discovered DNA, the structure in which a persons genes are encoded. Since then, our knowledge of the genome has revolutionized medicine. But when it comes to the U.S. legal system, important questions about what a gene is remain unsolved.

Here's one question: If a gene is patentable, does that mean a company can claim the rights to the gene's offspring?

The U.S. patent law was written in 1793, and it certainly didnt take into consideration a biological invention that could make endless copies of itself. So when Vernon Bowman, a 75-year-old farmer, decided to save some cash and buy seeds from a bulk grain distributor (seeds that were arguably protected by a patent), did he break intellectual property law?

Here's another: Do law enforcement need a search warrant to take a sample of a person's DNA? When the state of Maryland swabbed the cheek cells of Alonzo King when he was booked for assault, were they violating his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, since those cells would be crucial in convicting him of a crime committed six years earlier? To what extent is DNA protected private information?

As is often the case, U.S. law has still not caught up to the science. Three cases coming before the Supreme Court this term will have a significant impact on the future of genetics and the law. Each contains its own powerful question about genetics and what it means to criminal justice and industry.

Flickr/CodonAUG

Defining a gene can be difficult, but in the broadest sense its easyits a packet of information, says Dr. James P. Evan, a professor of genetics and medicine at the University of North Carolina. And if you have not really changed the content of that, the informational content, you dont deserve a patent.

Because Chakrabarty had actually created something novel, he won the case. But he was dealing in bacterial genetics. The question gets a little more confusing when it comes to human DNA, as well find in the upcoming case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics.

Heres the background. If youre a woman, you really dont want to have the genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. That because 60 percent of female BRCA carriers develop breast cancer during their lifetime (compared with 12 percent of women in the population at large).

Myriad Genetics found a way to isolate the BRCA genes for testing, and have patented that technology. But they took the patent a step further. Claiming that they altered the BRCA genes to a degree not found in naturethat is, took them outside of a strand of DNAthey also filed a patent on the genes themselves.

More:
What Is a Gene And How Does it Apply to the Law? The Supreme Court Still Doesn't Know

Comments are closed.