Friday, June 29, 2012

Top DNA Researcher Says Patenting Human Genes is "Lunacy"

Brandon Turbeville

From the very beginning of genetic research and modification, it was obvious that it would only be a matter of time before a claim would be staked on the very programming of human life by governments or international corporations. Unfortunately, that day has finally come with the recent patent of two human genes by Myriad Genetics.

The two genes being targeted by Myriad are BRCA1 and BRCA2 and they have already been the subject of several court rulings and a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Some scientists are claiming that these genes provide a link to “hereditary” breast or ovarian cancer. Yet, considering the history of corporations and the advantages they would gain by “owning” the DNA of a species (particularly of the human variety), we can safely assume that there is another agenda afoot which is concerned with more than mere science and development.

With that in mind, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit directed against Myriad Genetics aimed at challenging their claim to the human genes. Interestingly enough, this lawsuit is also working its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for a second time.

Originally, a District Court had ruled that Myriad’s patent on the human genes was invalid because it lays claim to a “product of nature,” which is not patentable under law. However, in a 2-1 decision, the court of appeals reversed that ruling, agreeing with Myriad that “isolating” the DNA by removing it from the cell did in fact create a patentable molecule. Thankfully, the Supreme Court vacated this ruling and has ordered the Court of Appeals to reconsider the case.

Yet the idea that a corporation can patent the most basic and fundamental pieces of human biology is so onerous that, in addition to a lawsuit and several court appearances, it is beginning to draw the ire of notable DNA researchers - even those who have advocated eugenics in the past.

Indeed, Dr. James Watson fits the bill in both of these categories. Not only that, but having been credited with the discovery of identifying “DNA’s ability to create life through its double helical structure and its information-coding sequences,” as well as leading the Human Genome Project in the early 1990’s, Watson is well-respected in his field.

This is why his recent filing of an amicus brief in opposition to gene patents and in conjunction with the lawsuit filed by the ACLU against Myriad Genetics is so groundbreaking and important.

In this brief, where Watson describes gene patenting as “lunacy,” he explains why, from his perspective as a scientist, why this process cannot be allowed to continue.

In his brief, Watson states how the idea of patenting genes during the course of his own work was simply unacceptable. He writes, “Amusingly, after I gave my first presentation of our DNA structure in June 1953, Leo Szilard, the Hungarian physicist and inventor of the nuclear chain reaction, asked whether I would patent the structure. That, of course, was out of the question.”

He continues by stating, “DNA’s importance flows from its ability to encode and transmit the instructions for creating humans. Life’s instructions ought not to be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts.”

Of course, the issue of human gene patenting is not a new one. At the time that Watson was leading the Human Genome Project, which operated under the guise of mapping the entire human genome, the National Institute of Health (NIH) was itself filing patents on genes. Watson claims to have opposed the patenting scheme and, as a result, he resigned from the NIH in 1992.

He states in the brief, “I believed at the time – and continue to believe – that the issue of patenting human genes went to the very crux of whether the information encoded by human DNA should be freely available to the scientific community.”

Watson has also attacked the faulty logic that underpins the ruling of the Appeals Court and the argument of Myriad Genetics. This is because the Corporation (and the Court) use relatively insignificant chemical differences which result from removing the DNA from the cell but ignore the fact that isolated DNA “encodes for the same proteins as DNA in one’s body.”

Watson writes, “They myopic viewpoint thinks of a human gene as merely another chemical compound, composed of various bases and sugars. But history and science teach us otherwise. A human gene, which is a product of nature, is useful because it conveys vital information.”

This position has actually gained some ground within the U.S. Government. In the ACLU’s lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Government filed two briefs which concluded that these patents are, in fact, invalid.

Also at issue in the coming Federal Circuit court hearings will be whether or not the patenting of human genes will actually impede future innovation, development, and discovery. This is because, if the patents are successful, they will prevent other laboratories from testing the genes, the method of testing and acquirement notwithstanding.

Watson also speaks to this issue. He states: 

To this day, we continue to learn how human genes function. We estimate that humans have approximately 22,000 genes. We have yet to fully understand the functions of all human genes, but this lack of understanding is further reason that scientists should be permitted to experiment on human genes free from any threat of patent infringement.
Of course, Myriad Genetics has countered in its own brief that it only seeks to patent the two genes it has isolated, not any of the other 22,000 estimated genes in existence.

Such a week argument barely warrants a response as it is clear that, if the patents are found legal in the case of these two specific genes, the floodgates of patents on the other 22,000 will follow before the ink has dried on the patent forms of the genes at issue.

The oral arguments before the Federal Circuit Court are set to begin on July 20.

Please support Brandon Turbeville's work by purchasing his new book HERE

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) 

For Brandon Turbeville's most recent articles, visit his archive page HERE

You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Not being an expert on patent law, but able to form a meager opinion; patenting should only be used for inventions created by humans, not natural biological materials which (potentially) spontaneously create and sustain life, which does not qualify as an invention in the traditional sense of the word, unless the life form itself by chance possesses said biological material would be the only one to qualify for the patent; otherwise, holding patent really amounts to subjugation by any other. It's the BIG prize. Ah, yes, yet another instance where the Devil may have his due.

annie said...

Jesus' disciples made a stand for truth unto death - many of them, 10's of thousands perhaps more were tortured and killed and would not give up their belief in the truth. God created all things including our DNA. He is the author of life, He breathes His spirit into all living things. They might say they own the rights to life, these corporations, these atheists - I won't call them scientists because they sold their soul a long time ago but they do not and no amount of hot air in court will make it so. We say NO to them. - all day long they injure My cause, all their thoughts are against Me for evil.


At least this evil is bringing about great technology which can easily be adapted to benefit mankind. This will all be ours in due time and when it happens we will all dance and sing and know that this evil may have been a necessity for all to witness so we can move on from there. It is all out of our hands for now but soon we will all have a hand in building a new world out of the shambles of this one. So store up your ideas and think about the Heaven we can create with all of this fantastic technology that this evil has militarized. It is ours and we will have it for everyone world wide. This is the good news. Rejoice!!

Violet Flame said...

I am not a religious being but definitely spiritual and I have to agree with the lady (Annie): the Creator, God, Father, Mother, Highest Source of Love, what ever you want to call Him/Her/It/Them, definitely holds those rights, all the way from end (omega) to beginning (alpha) and back to contest! Love and blessings to All That Is, including and most importantly to the severely deluded minds mentioned above. Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible: "Father forgive them, for the know not what they do." or some such wording? We should follow suit. Love is unconditional and those who are missing it, need it most. Hence it is up to those of us who do see and feel and know to ensure that we don't close our hearts and souls to those who still suffer from ignorance... :)

Anonymous said...

I think this may be a precursor to marketing genetically-modified offspring...hazel eyes will cost you 20k, blue eyes 40, et cetera. Of course you can take your chances naturally but by then 'naturals' will be inferior - the product of the toiling classes whose genetic 'passport' proves their serfdom. Mick McNulty. England.

Post a Comment