Australia Finally Rejects Gene Patents

from the big-win dept

Back in 2013, in a hugely important decision, the US Supreme Court rejected the idea of gene patents, in particular the patents held by Myriad Genetics for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (that are genetic warning signs for breast cancer). A parallel case was happening down in Australia, where an Australian court went the other way last year, ruling that genes could be patented. As we noted, the case could still be appealed to the Australian High Court. And now... the High Court has finally rejected gene patents.

The High Court held that an isolated nucleic acid, coding for a BRCA1 protein, with specific variations from the norm that are indicative of susceptibility to breast cancer and ovarian cancer, was not a "patentable invention"...

Specifically, the court rejected the argument that isolating the gene represented a "manner of manufacture" as required by the law to be patentable.

The Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the invention claimed did not fall within the concept of a manner of manufacture. The Court held that, having regard to the relevant factors, an isolated nucleic acid, coding for the BRCA1 protein, with specified variations, is not a manner of manufacture. While the invention claimed might be, in a formal sense, a product of human action, it was the existence of the information stored in the relevant sequences that was an essential element of the invention as claimed. A plurality of the Court considered that to attribute patentability to the invention as claimed would involve an extension of the concept of a manner of manufacture which was not appropriate for judicial determination.

That's a fairly complex way of saying you can't patent genes. It's always nice to see a little more common sense enter the patent system.

Filed Under: australia, brca1, dna, gene patents, patents
Companies: myriad genetics

DailyDirt: It's Not All In Your DNA...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Every cell (or nearly every cell) in your body contains the same copy of DNA instructions. Somehow, though, your heart muscle cells know how to beat while your red blood cells do a very different bodily function. There's quite a lot about DNA that we know about, but the genetic process is still not fully understood.

• Did you know that your genetic expressions change with the seasons? Researchers have known for some time that DNA seems to react to different parts of the day, but they've also recently seen that gene expression can change with the time of year, as the days are shorter/longer. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it appears that thousands of genes related to the immune system are more active in the winter. #WinterIsComingDNA [url]
• Everyone knows that sleep is important, but can just one all-nighter have lasting effects on your genes? Maybe? All kinds of stress can induce changes in how your genes are expressed. Intense exercise can cause some lasting genetic effects. A lack of sleep for just one night can have measurable effects, but there are also multiple factors that can disrupt your circadian rhythm -- even after just one sleepless night. Still, it's probably a good idea to try not to skimp on sleeping, if you can avoid it. [url]
• Correlation isn't causation, but people with depression seem to have more mitochondrial DNA and shorter telomeres than people without symptoms of major depression. Perhaps it's not shocking that depression is another kind of stress that can have detrimental effects on our genes, but now there's some hard evidence that could help us understand the connections between mental health and physical health. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: biology, biotech, circadian rhythm, dna, gene expression, genetic code, health, sleep, sleep deprivation, telomeres

DailyDirt: Super-Human Abilities, Not Just For X-Men

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Human genetic studies are pointing to more and more interesting information about how our bodies work and develop and ultimately fail. Optimists point to using this knowledge for the improvement of the human condition, but there are some obvious counter-arguments to this viewpoint. So far, though, the technology for genetic therapies or designer babies hasn't been anywhere near perfected, giving us some time to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls. Unfortunately, our inherent biases in what we're looking at in our genome might prove to be our own undoing.

• Naturally-occurring genetic mutations happen all the time, and some of them could lead to treatments for serious diseases... or better than average abilities. Timothy Dreyer has an unusually high bone density mutation that could help treat osteoporosis, and there are other mutants that could be added to a registered database of mutants (without the help of Professor X). [url]
• Breast size genetics is being studied... to determine if there are any correlations to the incidence of breast cancer. Apparently, at least seven genetic factors are associated with breast size, and three of those are linked to breast cancer. [url]
• People with a condition called aphakia can see in the ultraviolet region of light -- normally invisible to most humans. Most people can distinguish about a million different colors, but others can perceive orders of magnitude more. Certainly, there are limits to human vision, but it's still amazing to think that people can see galaxies millions of light-years away on a clear night with the naked eye. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: aphakia, breast cancer, cancer, dna, gattaca, gene therapy, genetics, health, medicine, mutants, timothy dreyer
Companies: 23andme

DailyDirt: Life As We Know It...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

All the biology we study today is based on life that relies on DNA (and RNA) to propagate. The ability to control DNA sequences will have a profound effect on our environment and society. We can already create synthetic lifeforms, but are we responsible enough to play with biotechnological fire?

• Editing DNA precisely could change a lot of things. The Crispr-Cas9 technique for editing genes isn't perfect, so it could do a lot of good -- or a lot of damage. It can be applied to people or bacteria or just about any living thing we know about, and we'll have to figure out whether our edits are improvements or bioweapons. [url]
• GMO animals might be cruelty free -- if we can engineer farm animals to not feel pain? We're not quite up to speed with Douglas Adams yet, but hornless Holsteins and other mutants might be ready for the dinner table soon. [url]
• Gene editing is one biotech tool, and gene activation is another -- and they're both related. Steering the epigenome and turning certain genes on or off could create gene therapies that cure disease or increase longevity.... [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: biology, biotech, crispr, dna, douglas adams, epigenome, gene activation, gene editing, gene therapies, gmo, hornless holsteins, rna, synthetic lifeforms

DailyDirt: Life Finds A Way...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are more common than many people think. Diabetics nowadays who rely on insulin shots aren't getting their medicine from pigs/cows or other mammals -- and haven't been for decades. Modern sources of insulin come from vats of genetically engineered bacteria. So what about GMOs and GMO-produced products in our food supply? Most Americans have definitely eaten some GMO food, but is there any end to GMO experimentation in the wild now?

• In France, a lamb that was genetically modified with jellyfish DNA got into the retail food chain -- and some people have probably eaten it without knowing. This wasn't an accident, apparently. A disgruntled worker (and possibly some co-workers) purposely sold a lab animal to a slaughterhouse. It's probably not going to kill anyone, but this is how the dinosaurs get out of Jurassic Park World, IRL. [url]
• In 2013, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) found genetically engineered wheat in Oregon -- where it shouldn't have been. Since then, there has been some concern that more GMO wheat is growing in the wild without anyone knowing.... [url]
• You can thank GMOs for making billions of pounds of cheese sold today (ie. most of the cheese you see in US stores). Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) is used instead of a calf stomach extract -- and it just wouldn't be possible to make as much cheese as we do without FPC (unless the veal industry suddenly exploded). [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: bacteria, biotech, cheese, dna, food, fpc, gmo, insulin, jurassic park, usda, veal, wheat

The Latest In The 'Collect It All' Collection: An Entire Nation's DNA

from the adding-more-hay dept

"Collect it all": for the NSA, it is communications data; for Kenya, it is information about every Wi-Fi user and device. For Kuwait, as Yahoo News reports, it's everyone's DNA:

Kuwait's parliament, reacting to a suicide bombing last week that killed 26 people, adopted a law Wednesday requiring mandatory DNA testing on all the country's citizens and foreign residents.

The legislation, requested by the government to help security agencies make quicker arrests in criminal cases, calls on the interior ministry to establish a database on all 1.3 million citizens and 2.9 million foreign residents.

Kuwait seems to be pretty serious about implementing this scheme. Refuse to give samples? That will cost you $33,000 and a year in jail. Try to pass off someone else's DNA as your own? Make that seven years in jail. Setting up the DNA database won't be cheap, but an extra $400 million has been allocated by Kuwait's parliament:

"We have approved the DNA testing law and approved the additional funding. We are prepared to approve anything needed to boost security measures in the country," independent MP Jamal al-Omar said.

Following the high death toll in the suicide bombing, there is a natural desire to do something to stop it happening again, and to help catch those behind it. But the move to collect everyone's DNA seems to be born mostly from an opportunistic government desire to exploit tragic events to bring in extreme laws without much resistance.

After all, how exactly will having everyone's DNA in a database prevent future suicide bombings? Yes, it might help with the rapid identification of the bomber(s) and victims. That's useful, but hardly justifies an unprecedented collection of everyone's DNA. And it may help resolve other crimes, particularly rape, which will be welcomed by the victims. But if DNA becomes a standard tool in everyday criminal cases, having everyone's DNA may actually hinder investigations because of false positives. We are all shedding DNA everywhere we go, so the presence of somebody's genetic material at the scene of a crime probably means nothing (and could even be an attempt to frame someone, which becomes much easier.) But it will require the police to eliminate all those genetic bystanders, which is likely to slow down the investigation.

In this respect, it's the classic needle-in-a-haystack data problem, but applied to the world of genomes. Just as adding more hay does not help you find those proverbial needles, so increasing the size of the DNA database to encompass the entire population does not generally make it easier to find the perpetrator of a crime. In fact, smaller, more selective DNA databases are more sensible, just as targeted surveillance is more effective. With luck, Kuwait's future discovery of this fact, and its failure to draw much benefit from this massive intrusion into the most personal sphere of all -- the genome -- will make other governments think twice before following suit.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: collect it all, dna, kuwait, privacy, surveillance

DailyDirt: Bite Me. No, Wait, Don't...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are thousands of species of mosquitoes. Killing them all might not be advisable, but controlling how they interact with us would be good -- so that we can prevent various mosquito-borne diseases. If you hate mosquito bites, check out a few of these links to learn more about your tiny tiny nemeses.

• Mosquitoes seem to like some people more than others, but is that really true? Maybe. And there might be a genetic reason for it. A (small) study of twins showed that mosquitoes didn't 'smell' a difference between identical twins but could for non-identical twins. A genetic explanation of this result isn't exactly clear yet, but there could be one. [url]
• Mosquitoes might bite (or suck the blood of) people based on the variety of bacteria living on their skin. This preference may correlate with HLA genes that also seem to be involved in body odor differences. [url]
• What can you do to avoid mosquito bites (besides avoiding areas where mosquitoes live)? If you think you can eat garlic and ward them off like vampires, think again. Protective clothing and DEET seem to be the most effective things so far. There are some devices that disperse various chemical repellents that seem to work, too. Lasers, however, are probably not going to be practical for some time. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: deet, disease, dna, genetics, health, hla genes, mosquitoes, twins

DailyDirt: Waiting For Superman... From A Test Tube

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The concept of creating superhumans using genetic engineering has been around for quite some time in science fiction, but now that it's almost becoming a practical thing to do, there are some scientists calling for a moratorium on experimenting with germline engineering until we can debate the issue and come to some consensus on what should be considered ethical. Treating diseases with drugs/radiation/whatever may let an individual patient live longer, but messing with embryonic DNA could have more lasting effects because whatever genetic edits are made will be passed down to future generations (well, unless genetically modified humans are purposely made sterile...). This kind of medicine is going to be controversial for the foreseeable future, but it's going to be done somewhere as the science and technology behind it gets better.

• Chinese researchers at Sun Yat-Sen University have already experimented with germline engineering, editing the DNA of human fertilized eggs to remove a blood disease called beta-thalassemia. Their method reveals that a lot more work needs to be done for germline engineering to become a reliable process for treating genetic diseases. They used abnormal embryos that could not be grown further for this particular study, but it's entirely conceivable that future experiments could be done with viable embryos. [url]
• Some optimists are not too concerned with the issues of creating superhumans. Perhaps superhumans will be benevolent and create a better world, but there's no guarantee that super intelligence correlates with super empathy or super kindness. There are no guarantees in life, period, but perhaps we can slow down the rate of problems we create...? [url]
• A three-parent IVF procedure can prevent certain mitochondrial disorders. Children born using this technique have DNA from their "traditional" parents PLUS mitochondrial DNA from a donor mother, and there are presumably some 3-parent teenagers walking around the world right now. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: biotech, crispr, designer babies, dna, eugenics, gattaca, genetic engineering, germline engineering, gmo, ivf, mitochondria, superhuman, three-parent ivf

DailyDirt: More Clues To The Origins Of Life On Earth

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The beginnings of life on our planet aren't well known because we simply don't know the exact conditions that were present billions of years ago. However, experiments under lab conditions that try to simulate the early solar system could shed some light on how early life developed, and there are some researchers looking into prebiotic chemical reactions to see if we can narrow down the possibilities and rule out any pathways that are unlikely to have contributed to our present thriving ecosystem. These experiments could lead to a better understanding of what life is and how we might detect other kinds of life elsewhere in our solar system or galaxy.

• Some chemists demonstrate that many important prebiotic molecules can be created with just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light. This finding could help end the debate over whether early life began with cell membranes or RNA or DNA -- or create more questions as it looks like the precursors to RNA, lipids and amino acids could have all been made at the same time under similar conditions which might have been common in prebiotic earth. [url]
• Professor Jack Szostak talks about the origins of life on earth and how lab experiments could help us understand astrobiology. Szostak discusses how early life on our planet might have started with simpler biomolecules than we have today and became more complex with natural selection -- but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. [url]
• Meteorites bombarded by radiation could have seeded prebiotic molecules on planets throughout the universe. Zapping formamide under conditions thought to be similar to early solar systems resulted in organic molecules such as nucleobases, carboxylic acids, sugars, amino acids, and some precursors to RNA and DNA. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: astrobiology, biology, biomolecules, dna, jack szostak, life, meteorites, prebiotic molecules, rna, seti

DailyDirt: What Are We Going To Do With All This Genetic Information?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Genomic sequencing is becoming more readily available and cheaper by the minute. It's not quite as easy as it looks on TV (ie. we don't have a Star Trek tricorder just yet), but minuscule amounts of DNA are revealing a vast amount of information about our health and our ancestors. This treasure trove of data is literally lying around everywhere just waiting to be collected.

• The genetic information of 2,636 Icelanders has helped researchers more accurately pin down when the father of all humanity lived -- some time between 174,000 and 321,000 years ago. Our mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 200,000 years ago. However, our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) likely lived just 2,000-4,000 years ago. [url]
• A routine blood test can determine the sex of a baby just 7 weeks into a pregnancy. Can we expect people to use the results of these tests responsibly? How accurate do these tests really need to be? [url]
• A diagnostic test for cancer based on a simple blood test could save a lot of time, money and stress. The Lymphocyte Genome Sensitivity (LGS) test is still in clinical trials, but early results suggest it might be possible to detect cancer or pre-cancerous conditions without requiring biopsies. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, if you have some spare change (or more) and would like to support Techdirt, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: blood tests, cancer, data, dna, genetics, genomic sequencing, health, icelanders, lgs test, lymphocyte genome sensitivity test, mitochondrial eve, mrca