Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- much -- can -- company patent human genes that is the question that the Supreme Court is trying to answer today.
A gene -- -- is actually a multi million dollar industry.
And the court's decision could reshape medical research and the fight against certain types of cancer and joining us now -- Doug burns he's a former federal prosecutor.
And he's gonna write some more insight for -- I was amazed to learn that.
That US Patent and Trademark Office.
Has been awarding patents on human genes for more than thirty years now yeah and as we said it's a multimillion.
Dollar business yes.
They've been a warning thousands of them and it's really amazing.
And some of the commentary I read said.
Yahoo! is kind of a bad idea that's now been embedded in cement.
You know -- -- and and and to break this down real simple the southern district of New York trial court actually invalidated.
The patenting of the -- in this case but it was reversed by what Wheeler -- the US court of appeals for the second circuit OK now -- before the Supreme Court.
So they would have to -- the second circuit you know to invalidate the patent -- they say well they sound decision yet what's the potential fallout.
While the -- is -- there's a lot of people with a stake in this race all of the major or not all of many of the major medical organizations have put in briefs.
What we call -- -- it's friend of the court briefs.
You know army -- Spanish -- -- -- Latin.
And they have said that.
Basically genes are not inventions.
-- genes are natural phenomenon.
In the body I agree with that.
And I do not think.
That you should give economic and legal power.
Over something that is basically natural phenomenon and by the way these last point these institutions are saying that it hinders scientific reason.
Well the way that companies are getting around it they're saying that that is not actually human DNA anymore that's not what they're talking about -- actually isolating the DNA and so it has a different type of.
It's a synthetic chemical as a way we're getting around it that's very well but because putting my lead lawyer had on a -- arguing the other side.
Of course the argument is this isn't raw natural.
DNA -- -- -- It's basically tweaked or -- harder reconstructed.
And that human process like an artist.
Okay is something that should be protected but again when you look at all of -- -- is it.
I think to have -- the -- -- that means that I take a look at this statement this is -- -- was from the lawyer that they ACLU lawyer involved in this case Christopher Hansen and here's what he said.
-- under this theory a kidney.
Removed from the body are gold extracted from a stream.
Would be -- pat Campbell and and some would be pat Campbell subject matter what I will -- using so just because you take it out of the body right next.
If you believe as in this Johns Hopkins commentary -- you know that's a very well respected institution.
Where again not to be a broken record they say no serious scientists could contest the idea that a gene is not an invention.
The question is what about a gene that's been use the term reconfigured or isolated become a synthetic chemical exactly since that chemical van.
Is the scientists doing something that's protective ball it's a tough question I mean -- and it's a question.
More for scientists but I do think the Supreme Court is gonna agree with judge Robert sweet very well respected federal judge in the -- district who elevated the patents.
Expected decision by the end of the summer but hopefully this is would not mean potentially less research and thus potentially less lifesaving discovery -- thank you done.
Filter by section