DailyDirt: Cool Animal Research

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

While there are some people out there trying to kickstop genetically modified organisms from being created, the progress of biotechnology doesn't seem to be slowing down. Researchers are coming up with all kinds of new ways to look at mysterious biological processes, and here are just a few examples.

• Transparent brains could help neuroscientists visualize details of neurons at a molecular level. The process removes all the fat from a brain to make it transparent, and the technique could be applied to other organs as well. [url]
• Genes from jellyfish have created a bunch of glow-in-the-dark animals -- such as cats, dogs, fish, sheep, pigs, monkeys and rabbits. This research isn't just for fun (though kids might want a glow-in-the-dark pet someday) because the ability to insert genes from other species could lead to better ways to treat certain diseases, and glowing proteins give researchers an obvious way to mark genetically modified cells. [url]
• Researchers have found a way to study magnetic sensory cells in fish. These magnetic cells allow fish (and presumably similar cells in migratory birds) to navigate vast distances by sensing the Earth's magnetic field. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: animal research, biology, biotech, dna, genes, gfp, glow-in-the-dark, gmo, imaging, kickstop, magnetic sensory cells, neuroscience, protein

DailyDirt: Making Extinction Extinct

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Jurassic Park was just a movie -- there isn't really a practical way to pull intact dinosaur DNA from fossilized mosquitoes. But recently-extinct animal species might be cloned because we can actually gather intact DNA and cell fragments that can be manipulated more easily. Here are just a few examples of projects that could create animals that are now considered extinct.

• There are several TED talks on de-extinction, discussing cloning and various animals that could potentially be revived. We could learn a lot from figuring out how to take somewhat arbitrary DNA instructions and produce viable organisms. [url]
• Dolly the sheep was born in 1996, and in 2003, an extinct wild goat (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) was cloned, but it died with some major genetic defects. Since then, cloning techniques have gotten better, but re-creating an extinct animal is one thing. Raising a healthy animal that was once extinct is a completely different challenge. [url]
• At the Central Veterinary Research Laboratory in Dubai, scientists have reportedly engineered a male duck to produce chicken sperm that fathered a chicken. The process of introducing chicken DNA into the reproductive organs of a male duck embryo could presumably be used in other birds (especially for other birds that may be endangered). [url]
• An extinct Australian frog species has been brought back to life (almost). Scientists cloned an extinct frog (Rheobatrachus silus) by injecting its dead cell nucleus into a fresh egg of distantly-related frog, (Mixophyes fasciolatus), and observed the embryo grow -- but it didn't survive beyond a few days. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: biology, chicken, cloning, dna, duck, extinction, frog, genes, goat, species

Australian Court Says Genes Are Patentable

from the sweat-of-the-brow? dept

While the US Supreme Court will soon be weighing in on whether or not genes are patentable in the Myriad Genetics case, we've also been following a similar case in Australia. There, a bunch of cancer patients took Myriad to court, arguing that the patent on BRCA1 is invalid (this same gene is part of the US case). Unfortunately, the court has decided that genes are, in fact, patentable if they've been isolated. This is always the key point of contention with gene patent supporters. They claim that it's the fact that they can separate the gene that makes their work patentable. In some ways this is an odd sort of "sweat of the brow" argument for patents -- and here, the judge is buying the argument completely. He says that patenting genes in the human body would be a problem... but isolating them magically makes it a different story.

There is no doubt that naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside the cells of the human body cannot be the subject of a valid patent. However, the disputed claims do not cover naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside such cells. The disputed claims extend only to naturally occurring DNA and RNA which have been extracted from cells obtained from the human body and purged of other biological materials with which they were associated.

This still seems ridiculous to me. If others figure out how to get an isolated gene as well, why should that be subject to a patent? Hopefully this is not a preview of the US Supreme Court's upcoming ruling.

Filed Under: australia, brca1, breast cancer, cancer, genes, patents
Companies: myriad, myriad genetics

Appeals Court Doubles Down: Genes Still Patentable

from the you-don't-own-your-genes dept

Well this is unfortunate, but not too surprising. After the Supreme Court rejected medical diagnostic patents in the Mayo case, it vacated the ruling by the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) on gene patents in the Myriad Genetics case, where CAFC had said genes are patentable, and asked it to redo the case in light of the Mayo decision. The ruling came out today, and CAFC more or less repeated what it said in the original ruling. The same panel of three judges effectively argued that Mayo had no real impact on what it said last year, and it was sticking by its decision. The Patently-O link above has a bit more detail, or you can read the full 106 pages (pdf and embedded below), which includes all three panelists entering their opinions (one dissenting). If you read last years, you'll find this one pretty similar, with just a few nods to why they were redoing the process.

All that really matters at this point is that isolated genes are still considered patentable. Even though people like James Watson, who was as part of the team that discovered DNA's structure, have argued that this kind of ruling is pure lunacy, the court is sticking by its position.

The case is likely far from over and there's a decent chance that it, too, will end up in front of the Supreme Court, where they'll have yet another chance to smack CAFC around for being overly infatuated with letting everything in the world be patentable. First up, though, will likely be an attempt to rehear the case "en banc" (with the full slate of CAFC judges, rather than just the three-judge panel). In other words, this is far from over, but if you're in the camp of folks who think the idea of patenting your genes is insanity, well, we're still living in an insane world.

Filed Under: cafc, dna, gene patents, genes, patents, supreme court
Companies: myriad genetics

Supreme Court Sends Case On Gene Patents Back To Appeals Court Following Rejection Of Diagnostic Patents

from the rethink-that-please dept

As we expected, following the Supreme Court's excellent rejection of medical diagnostic patents, it's now set aside the appeals court's ruling upholding gene patents, and asked the appeals court to review the case in light of its ruling last week. Again, this is not a surprise, but it's good that the court so quickly recognized that the two cases have similar issues, and that the appeals court ought to revisit the Myriad (gene patents) ruling so quickly. Hopefully, CAFC (the appeals court in question) will come to its senses and recognize that you can't patent genes. Either way, no matter what CAFC decides, expect that to also be appealed right back to the Supreme Court.

Filed Under: appeals court, cafc, diagnostic patents, dna, gene patents, genes, patents, remand, supreme court
Companies: mayo clinic, myriad genetics, prometheus laboratories

DailyDirt: Studying Gray Matter Before We Hack It...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Our brains are pretty complex bundles of nerves -- that aren't actually like CPUs at all (even though lots of folks make the brain-CPU analogy). We're still trying to figure these wrinkled organs out with fairly primitive methods, but at least some progress is being made. Here are just a few quick links on some brain studies.

• Australian researchers think that genes may explain how 'cost-efficient' our brains are -- and ultimately how genes affect cognitive abilities. Hopefully, no one finds and patents the 'genius' genes... [url]
• The iBrain is not a new product from Apple -- it's a nifty device that records data from your brain in order to diagnose various neurological disorders. Once it's collected enough data, though, maybe it'll help in figuring out how regular brains work, too. [url]
• Sleep deprivation has been demonstrated to reduce a mouse's ability to retain memories. So try to get a good night's sleep before making any best-laid plans with mice. [url]
• To discover more interesting articles on the human mind, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: brains, genes, ibrain, memory, sleep

DailyDirt: Mind And Body Interactions

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The mind works in mysterious ways. There are all sorts of studies that try to connect how the mind can affect its surroundings. Bending spoons probably won't fool too many people these days, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions about placebos and other "mind-controlled" effects. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that people in general are just inherently bad at statistics and interpreting data and correlations. Whatever the case may be, here are some quick links about mind-over-matter topics.

Stress might be able to affect your genes. So far, just yeast cells have been shown to have genes changed by stress. Maybe larger organisms' genes are affected by stress, too? [url]

In a 1997 survey, 18 million Americans reported having a near death experience (NDE)... and neurologists are studying the states of consciousness that can "blend" during an NDE. They might figure out how Inception really works while they're at it. [url]

Conquer your fears and self-doubts with acceptance. Easier said than done! [url]

Does ESP exist for predicting sexy pictures? Statistics don't lie... err, yes they do all the time. Guessing something right 53% of the time doesn't sound like ESP. [url]

Filed Under: genes, mind, statistics, stress

Appeals Court Says (Again) That Diagnostic Tests Are Patentable

from the supreme-court-please? dept

Last year, we wrote how a bunch of doctors were quite worried about an ongoing patent lawsuit, Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services. It involved a company, Prometheus, that claimed it could patent basic medial diagnostics, and basically said no one (such as the Mayo Clinic) could diagnose patients in the same way without paying Prometheus. The whole concept was abhorrent to many doctors. Yet, as we worried, last year the appeals court (CAFC), as it has done so often, sided with the patent holders. This summer, when the Supreme Court decided Bilski, one thing it asked CAFC to do was reconsider the Prometheus case. It's now done so, and nothing much has changed. Once again, CAFC has said that basic diagnostic tests may be patentable. Many also think (probably correctly) that this is a good indication that CAFC will also reverse a lower court ruling in the Myriad Genetics case, concerning whether or not genes are patentable. If diagnostic tests are patentable, why not genes? Of course, all this really means is that sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in again, and hopefully it won't punt the issue like it did in Bilski.

Filed Under: cafc, diagnostic tests, genes, patents, supreme court
Companies: mayo clinic, myriad genetics, prometheus labs

Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid

from the huge-news dept

In a huge ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet has said that gene patents are invalid. As you may recall, last May, the ACLU was the first to finally challenge whether or not genes could be patented. There was a lot of back and forth over the case, with many saying that a ruling against gene patents would throw a wrench into the business plans of many companies, because so many biotech/medical companies have been relying on the idea that gene patents must be valid for so long. But just because many companies relied on a mistaken understanding of patent law, doesn't mean that it should be allowed to continue. The judge made the point clear when it came to gene patents, saying that they:

"are directed to a law of nature and were therefore improperly granted."

The case was brought against Myriad Genetics, who will surely appeal, so this is nowhere close to over. But it involved a test for breast cancer, that Myriad basically had a monopoly over -- and the claim was that this not only made it more difficult for women to get tested, but it also greatly discouraged other research in the field. In part, this was because the patents that Myriad held were incredibly broad.

Patents, of course, are not supposed to be granted on things found in in nature -- and it's hard to argue against the idea that genes are found in nature. Supporters of gene patents often claim that they're not really gene patents, but a patent on identifying the gene, which is a nice semantic game that the judge clearly saw through. This is a huge step forward for encouraging more real research into genetic testing, rather than locking up important information.

Filed Under: brca1, gene patents, genes, invalid, nature, patents
Companies: aclu, myriad genetics

New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad

from the patenting-life dept

Last year a very important lawsuit was filed, challenging whether or not it was legal to patent genes. While that trial is still (slowly) moving forward, a study has come out pointing out that one of the genes that's at the center of that trial, BRCA1, from Myriad Genetics, is incredibly broad and could be used to stifle all sorts of important research:

For instance, BRCA1 is on chromosome 17. But long stretches of DNA on chromosome 1 are identical to stretches in the Myriad patent, the researchers said.

"This claim and others like it turn out, on examination, to be surprisingly broad, and if enforced would have substantial implications for medical practice and scientific research," they wrote.

In the meantime, we're still waiting for someone to explain how it possibly makes sense to patent genes.

Filed Under: brca1, genes, patents
Companies: myriad genetics