The article, titled “Justices Rule Human Genes cannot be Patented”, reports a ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a case between Myriad Genetics and other stakeholders who were fighting against Myriad’s claim for exclusive rights to patent human genes. The main point of the article, it seems, is that human genetic material cannot be patented because it is a product of nature rather than nurture.
The article, by quoting the justices of the Supreme Court, stresses that although scientists and biotechnologists may have the capacity to isolate the gene from the genetic material and use this break-through technology to prevent various diseases such as breast and ovarian cancer, they cannot claim patents for making the gene itself as this process occurs naturally.
In view of this point, the Supreme Court denied Myriad Genetics the exclusive rights to patent and own human genes, and stressed the fact that genes and the information they encode are not patent-eligible simply because a company has succeeded in isolating the genes from the surrounding genetic material.
The article is from a credible source as it has been published in a respected newspaper. Editors of newspapers such as USA Today always ensure the authenticity of content before publishing. Additionally, the author of the article often makes mention of his sources of information, further reinforcing the article’s credibility.
All the facts included in the article directly support the ruling that human genetic material cannot be patented because it is a product of nature rather than nurture.
For instance, it has been demonstrated how the health and wellbeing of breast and ovarian cancer patients will be jeopardized by monopolizing the human genes through giving one company exclusive patent rights. Arguably, the cost of seeking for treatment for such forms of cancer will definitely go up in spite of the fact that scientists have already identified the gene that normally dysfunction to trigger cancerous tumors.
Another supporting fact that has been explained in the article is that patenting of human genes may also limit research activities and advances in human genetics. Additionally, it has been acknowledged that genes and the information they encode are naturally occurring and hence no single individual or organization can claim a patent for their existence or perceived discovery. In short, genes and the information they encode cannot be termed as products of innovation.
In my view, there was no notable bias from the author of this article which is worth mentioning. Indeed, the researcher does well to balance the positive and the negative sides of the Supreme Court ruling. The positive elements have already been discussed in this paper.
However, on the negative elements, the author notes the historic ruling may create precedence whereby other biotechnology companies will be objecting to making huge investments in research due to incapacity to own the patents to protect their scientific discoveries. This is a valid concern that warrants closer scrutiny.
Overall, the major learning outcome is that human genes are naturally occurring and hence cannot be patented by any individual or organization. The second learning outcome is that genetic research is critical in dealing with the rampant cases of breast and ovarian cancer witnessed in the society today. Lastly, the idea of patenting scientific discoveries and the limits that one can go has been well explicated in the article.