Australian Federal Court Upholds Gene Patents
The Australian federal court upheld its previous ruling that genetic material removed from the human body could be patented, a move that has many worried for the future of Australian medical research.
The original decision in February of last year involved the gene known as BRCA1 and proprietary claims of U.S.-based Myriad Genetics and Genetic Technologies. Mutated forms of the BRCA1 gene are associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers, and Myriad has sought to patent the isolation of the gene as an invention, giving the company the ability to block or hold stake in any competing commercial endeavors involving the gene.
Cancer Voices Australia appealed the court’s decision, but the ruling was unanimously upheld by the court in favor of Myriad.
A similar case brought before the U.S. Supreme court by the ACLU was struck down in a 9-0 ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, and explained that, “Myriad didn’t create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”
Proponents of gene patents argue that it makes way for innovation and investment. Some in the biotechnology industry argue that without patents the companies will have less incentive to innovate.
Kenneth Noonan, a patent attorney, argues that if isolated genes are ineligible for patent, the same must be said for other biologically and organically derived products. He lists antibiotics and antibodies as examples. Most molecules patented by pharma research have a biological origin.
Still, some researchers worry about what this decisions means for the future of Australian pharma development.
Rebecca Gilsenan, attorney on the Australian case, maintains that, “Gene patents are of great concern to the medical research community and to the medical profession. Gene patents stifle innovation.”
Michael Specter, writer for The New Yorker, argues that competition is in the best interest of patients dying from disease, both in terms of improving technology and ensuring consumer affordability.
Specter writes, “It is important to remember what is at stake: breast cancer kills more women in the Western world than any other kind of cancer. Even the best tests are sometimes wrong; second opinions save lives.”
Gilsenan indicated that the case would seek a hearing in a higher Australian court. Myriad has, since the case went before the court, ceased enforcement of their claims.