The Human Patent: What Intellectual Property Rights Does an Individual Have in Their Own Genetic Material, and What Are the Global Biosecurity Implications?
{"title":"The Human Patent: What Intellectual Property Rights Does an Individual Have in Their Own Genetic Material, and What Are the Global Biosecurity Implications?","authors":"Christopher Chukwuemeka Egbunike","doi":"10.1515/jbbbl-2021-2002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Under United States patent law, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty established the patentability of human-made life forms, except for those encompassing a human organism. The America Invents Act of 2011, and decisions from lower courts such as Moore v. Regents of University of California, reaffirm the unpatentability of human organisms and limit an individual’s rights to their own genetic material. Prior to Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc, which struck down the patentability of human genes as well, the decision in Diamond led to the proliferation of gene patents and the growth of the global biotechnology market. While the debate over the patenting of human genetic material, and individual rights, rages on, DNA-gathering companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com routinely utilize their customer’s genetic material for multi-million dollar pharmaceutical research. This research not only raises ethical concerns, but can also pose a potentially dangerous biosecurity threat based on the many ways this genetic material can be used to target individuals, groups, and nations.","PeriodicalId":415930,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety, and Biodefense Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbbbl-2021-2002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Under United States patent law, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty established the patentability of human-made life forms, except for those encompassing a human organism. The America Invents Act of 2011, and decisions from lower courts such as Moore v. Regents of University of California, reaffirm the unpatentability of human organisms and limit an individual’s rights to their own genetic material. Prior to Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc, which struck down the patentability of human genes as well, the decision in Diamond led to the proliferation of gene patents and the growth of the global biotechnology market. While the debate over the patenting of human genetic material, and individual rights, rages on, DNA-gathering companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com routinely utilize their customer’s genetic material for multi-million dollar pharmaceutical research. This research not only raises ethical concerns, but can also pose a potentially dangerous biosecurity threat based on the many ways this genetic material can be used to target individuals, groups, and nations.
根据美国专利法,最高法院在Diamond v. Chakrabarty一案中具有里程碑意义的判决确立了人造生命形式的可专利性,但包含人类有机体的生命形式除外。2011年的《美国发明法案》(America invention Act),以及摩尔诉加州大学(Moore v. Regents of California)等下级法院的判决,都重申了人类有机体的不可专利性,并限制了个人对自己遗传物质的权利。此前,美国分子病理学协会(Association for Molecular Pathology)诉Myriad Genetics (Inc .)案也推翻了人类基因的可专利性,戴蒙德案的判决导致了基因专利的激增和全球生物技术市场的增长。虽然关于人类遗传物质的专利和个人权利的争论仍在激烈进行,但像23andMe和Ancestry.com这样的dna收集公司经常利用客户的遗传物质进行数百万美元的药物研究。这项研究不仅引发了伦理问题,而且还可能构成潜在的危险生物安全威胁,因为这种遗传物质可以以多种方式用于针对个人、群体和国家。