What The Ruling on Gene Patenting Means

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Although I mostly think about conservation, ecology and nature, I have a soft spot for medicine and, in particular, genetics. It's partly due to my own family history and experience, partly my interest in how people think about medicine and death, and partly my 6-month internship at Nature Medicine, which began more than two years ago this month.

So when Arikia Millikan, editor of LadyBits--a space for "tech-savvy women creating the content we want to consume"--asked me to write my own take on the recent Supreme Court case about gene patenting, I had to give it a go. I didn't write about incentivizing innovation, technical details, or loopholes. I just wrote about how the decision that genes can not be patented will affect our healthcare. And, in particular, I thought about how it should create a more open, positive conversation about genetics and medicine, and the choices it will allow us in the future.

Today, genes are part of our cultural vocabulary and sequencing has becoming increasingly cheap. But in the late 1980s and 1990s, there was a global race among genetic researchers to hunt down the breast cancer-causing genes passed down through families. Genetic tools were rudimentary and picking out the location of a gene over the entire human genome was painstaking work. But Myriad researchers managed to pinpoint BRCA1—a mere 0.0025% of the length of the human genome—and snip the DNA segment out.

At the time, that may have seemed like a novel invention in a world that didn’t understand genetics. It seemed like something that the hardworking researchers should be able to profit from—such as the $3,000-$4,000 genetic test that has built Myriad’s empire of hundreds of millions of dollars.

But we think about genes differently now. We’re getting close to being able to sequence an entire human genome for a measly $1,000—40,000 times longer than the little BRCA1 gene. The tools for sequencing are becoming ubiquitous. As you read this, biohackers in Brooklyn warehouses are trying their hand at synthetic biology, copying DNA sequences and piecing them together to make something new. In this world, can a company really claim a smidge of DNA as their intellectual property?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Read the rest on LadyBits at Medium.

Image: Flickr user Marazmova

Hannah Waters is a science writer fascinated by the natural world, the history of its study, and the way people think about nature. On top of science blogging, she runs the Smithsonian's Ocean Portal, a marine biology education website, and is science editor for Ladybits.

Hannah is a child of the internet, who coded HTML frames on her Backstreet Boys fanpage when she was in middle school. Aptly, she rose to professional science writing through blogging (originally on Wordpress) and tweeting profusely. She's written for The Scientist, Nature Medicine, Smithsonian.com, and others.

Before turning to full-time writing, Hannah wanted to be an oceanographer or a classicist, studying Biology and Latin at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. She's done ecological research on marine food webs, shorebird conservation, tropical ecology and grassland ecosystems. She worked as a lab technician at the University of Pennsylvania studying molecular biology and the epigenetics of aging. And, for a summer, she manned a microphone and a drink shaker on a tour boat off the coast of Maine, pointing out wildlife and spouting facts over a loudspeaker while serving drinks.

Email her compliments, complaints and tips at culturingscience at gmail dot com.

More by Hannah Waters

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe