Comments on: The ACLU v. Myriad Genetics Suit: Legitimate Challenge or Publicity Stunt?

By: Pia

Pia — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:16:42 +0000

I wish more people were interested in sciences in the USA. Myriad got a patent on a method to test for BRCA-1 and BRCA-2, genes that indicate a predisposition to get breast cancer.

It costs MONEY to get a PhD in bio sciences, and it takes long, hard work to get there. Yes, the test costs approx. $5000, but the people working to develop this test spent their youth studying to achieve this.

I am sick and tired of people feeling entitled to getting food stamps, free housing, free cell phones (the $10 Universal charge), etc., and now testing for cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where does it stop??????????????

What am I — a SLAVE who got a MS to pay for these expenses?

And who will do further bio research on cancer, Aids, etc. without MONEY????

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:10:03 +0000

For sure, this is not a good thing. If a company is allowed to “own” a gene under patent, that means that they alone would have the ability to test and treat you. You wouldn’t even be able to get a second opinion. So, without a system of checks and balances, how honest do you think this company is going to be? They would have a complete monopoly in this area. The thought of it makes my skin crawl and my teeth grind.

By: Susan Davis

Susan Davis — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:55:06 +0000

Having come from a family inundated with a mutation to our BRCA 1 gene, and as a breast cancer survivor, there are numerous things about Myriad’s patent that are disturbing. One of the most alarming is the fact that they have collected data on over 400,000 people who tested for a BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutation. If only that data was shared with the rest of the medical community as well as those of us so anxious for answers, imagine the difference it might make. Several years ago, testing for a BRCA mutation was well over $3,000 for the first person in the family. Well before that, Myriad indicated that the cost of testing would come down. Instead, it is more expensive now than ever before. Myriad also supports direct to consumer marketing-in other words, rather than acknowledging that patients seek genetic counseling first before they test…..sell them the test, give the results, and let them wonder what to do next.

By: Debbie Rawls

Debbie Rawls — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:38:16 +0000

Isn’t it quite sad that Myriad Labs is really more about the money than helping those of us with Breast Ca or our families. As soon as their patent expires, I just bet we might see BRCA3 and 4—strategic timing, don’t you think?? Who knows how long it may take me to pay off my bill from Myriad!! (and who really cares?) Thanks for the opportunity to vent.

By: Mike Stephens

Mike Stephens — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:49:29 +0000

If a company owns the gene “lock stock and barrel ” including any mutation, use of and research of then they are responsible for it and should be sued if that gene does you harm, If they can profit from it then they can be held responsible for it.
I think a class action suit from those affected adversely would allow the pharmaceutical companies to re think how much the want to own, just processing, testing, equipment and techniques. or the gene itself.

By: Mike Stephens

Mike Stephens — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:48:17 +0000

If a company owns the gene “lock stock and barrel ” including any mutation, use of and research of then they are responsible for it and should be sued if that gene does you harm, If the can profit from it then they can be held responsible for it.
I think a class action suit from those affected adversely would allow the pharmaceutical companies to re think how much the want to own, just processing, testing, equipment and techniques. or the gene itself.

By: ACLU vs. Myriad Genetics: A New Era in an Age Long Debate? at The MTTLR Blog

ACLU vs. Myriad Genetics: A New Era in an Age Long Debate? at The MTTLR Blog — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:02:53 +0000

[...] Office, et al. reopens the age old debate on patentability of human genetic material, but unlike other federal circuit cases which attacked the breadth and vast scope of rights granted to the holders of these patents, it [...]

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:47:17 +0000

Seems to me the ACLU has a good argument. The idea that isolated genes are an invention rather than a discovery seems about as plausible as the idea that newly discovered prime numbers are an invention and patentable for use in encryption.

Methods for discovering and using prime numbers should be patentable, but prime numbers themselves should not be. Methods for discovering and using genes should be patentable, gene sequences themselves should not be unless they are novel, artificially-constructed sequences with some utility.