CGS-authored
That question lies at the heart of a landmark legal case that some are calling the Brown v. Board of Education of genetic science, a field whose advances are increasingly guiding the medical decisions of consumers and doctors.
A federal judge this week threw out a Utah company's patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer, siding with scientists and health advocates who argue that the firm cannot legitimately patent a product of nature.
The plaintiffs said the company's monopoly on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes prevents competition that could lower testing costs -- now about $3,000 -- and means patients cannot independently verify information that can lead to drastic medical interventions, such as removing breasts to avoid cancer.
Scientists also say the patenting of human genes impedes research that could lead to better diagnostic tests and treatments.
"Many people are understandably disturbed by the idea that corporations are staking claim to the common heritage of humankind," said Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst for the Center for...