During the class, me and my group chose to research information about the case Molecular Pathology V. Myriad Genetics. The case was led by the Association of Molecular Pathology as the plaintiff, who was suing the defendants, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Myriad Genetics regarding issues revolving around patenting several human genes.
This argument has been brought forward to multiple courts. First this case was brought up in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which decided it was not okay for the human genes to be able to be patented. The case was appealed and presented in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which went against the decisions of the District Courts and said it was in fact okay to be able to patent the human genes sequence. Finally, the case was appealed again and presented in the Supreme Court.
The case entailed the Association of Molecular Pathology suing the Myriad Genetics for trying to patent specific human genes. These genes included the BRCA1 and BRCA2 and certain mutations that were perceived to be linked to breast cancer. Myriad Genetics was the first company to be able to successfully isolate the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that were linked to certain types of breast and ovarian cancers. Because of this success, multiple
…show more content…
The argument stated that if the patents were given to myriad Genetics, they would have exclusive rights to the isolated genes, and although they have found a use for their research regarding the BRCA1 and BRCA2, there can be multiple other uses for the same DNA sequence which will not be achieved because of the exclusivity of the genes. They elaborate as to explain that patents on human genes would prevent other scientists from working on the same material (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and be able to do more research on similar
It helps medics to find a direct genetic cause of the patient’s condition and target it with pharmaceutical or other therapies. The technology is used for the identification of DNA sequences that increase risks of current diseases and disorders; with this information carriers can start to make efforts to prevent them before the development of the problem. The video mentioned 200 actionable genes, structures that have direct links with a specific condition. Knowing about their presence, people have a chance to bring in preventive measures like taking anticoagulants in the case of identification of a thrombogenic gene. The technology led to the significant improvement of diagnostics and personalized treatments. It helped to find a rare, life-threatening mutation in case of Beery twins and assign a drug to a girl (Alexis) that returned her to a normal life. In the case of cancer genome sequencing led to the development of genetic drags, which target essential tumor genes and make malign structures to shrink. The video mentioned a product that works with the BRАF protein that induces cells to uncontrolled division; the drug led to the remission in the patient with metastasizing melanoma. Such treatment was effective in the case of cystic fibrosis. In the case of the breast cancer the technology helps to evaluate the aggressiveness of the condition and make a personalized decision about chemotherapy. The video also mentioned the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis – an early-staged technology that prevents the development of inherited disorders in
In the late twentieth century, the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has positioned itself to become one of the great technological revolutions of human history. Yet, things changed when Herber Boyer, a biochemist at the University of California, founded the company Genentech in 1976 to exploit the commercial potential of his research. Since then the field has exploded into a global amalgam of private research firms developing frivolous, profit-hungry products, such as square trees tailor-made for lumber, without any sort of government regulation.
Women who inherit a mutation in one copy of BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers6. This could be due to the disruption in the pathway of BRCA proteins in the cell nucleus. If BRCA1 is defective, it loses its ability to fix damaged DNA and causes tumor. It is because once the defective BRCA1 raises, it allows the cells to develop and divide uncontrollably. Since defective in BRCA1 causes cancers, it is important to understanding the function of the protein by analyzing its sequence and structure.
The first case of Cananvan disease was described in 1931 by Myrtelle Canavan who was one of the first female pathologists. In 1987 a family with two children with Canavan disease sent tissue samples to Reuben Matalon who was a researcher looking for the gene. With those samples he was able to identify the gene 1993. He was able to make a test to help at risk couples that might have a child with the disease. The test was free but in 1997 the Miami Children’s Hospital, which was Dr. Matalon’s employer, patented the gene and claimed everything received from testing. This resulted in the Canavan Foundation withdrawing their testing. The Canavan Foundation later sued the Hospital and the lawsuit was resolved in a sealed out of court session. This case raised the issue of how suitable it is to patent genes.
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
A mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer
In the modern world humans have been able to design and create nearly anything, most to aid us in our daily lives and improve our standard of living. It is only inevitable that eventually humans would take our superior knowledge and skill to manipulate life itself and change our genome to produce a healthier and even more superior human standard of life. In recent years discussion about gene therapy has changed into a promising possibility to treat many of our common human diseases and disorders. Although gene therapy might be the answer to many problems, it has been met with a number of logistical and ethical hardships. With the prospect of being a treatment for inherited genetic disorders, cancers, and viral infections, gene therapy seems like the logical fix-it-all bandage that many people would benefit from.
Epigenetics is the word that is used for genes that are modified in order to assist certain genome sequences that lead to diseases and disorders. Epigenetics has come a long way since the first genome sequence had its draft breakthrough in the year 2000 (NOVA 2012). From depression to cancer, epigenetics has made its way through to provide families with the appropriate knowledge and perhaps medication in order to avoid these diseases and disorders in the future.
Due to the human genome project and other genetic research, tests for mutation which cause diseases have been developed. The list of these illnesses include several types of cancer. Doctors have estimated that as many as 3,000 diseases are due to mutations in the genome. These diseases include several types of colon cancer in which three different genetic tests have been already developed. Debates have arisen on whether these tests should be used regularly or not. Questions including the patients= rights of privacy and the possibility of loss of health or life insurance have been argued over in both the media and political arena.
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
Although humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through artificial selection and other non-scientific means, the field of genetic engineering as we now know it did not begin until 1944 when DNA was first identified as the carrier of genetic information by Oswald Avery Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty (Stem Cell Research). In the following decades two more important discoveries occurred, first the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, by Watson and Crick, and next the 1973 discovery by Cohen and Boyer of a recombinant DNA technique which allowed the successful transfer of DNA into another organism. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created the world’s first transgenic animal by introducing foreign DNA into a mouse embryo, an experiment that would set the stage for modern genetic engineering (Stem Cell Research). The commercialization of genetic engineering began largely in 1976 wh...
The American Cancer Society publishes current advances made in cancer research on their website. Many of the exciting discoveries about how best to treat the disease focus on the genetic aspects associated with certain types of cancer. In addition, treatments aimed at genetic solutions to cancer may be more effective and may cause fewer adverse side effects than traditional cancer treatments (American Can...
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
The controversy of these issues stems from the immense potential in genetic sciences for both positive use and harmful misuse. Though the questions and fears of critics reflect the wisdom of caution, the potentially unlimited benefits mandate that we pursue these technologies.
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.