Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

Definition

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2013 that addressed the legality of patenting human genes. The court ruled that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, but synthetic DNA, or complementary DNA (cDNA), can be eligible for patent protection. This decision has significant implications for the patent system, especially in the field of biotechnology and medical diagnostics.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Myriad Genetics could not patent the naturally occurring BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk.
2. The case was brought forth by the Association for Molecular Pathology, which argued that gene patents hindered scientific research and access to genetic testing.
3. The ruling emphasized that while natural DNA sequences are not patentable, synthetic alternatives like cDNA are eligible for patents as they are created through human ingenuity.
4. This decision has opened the door for increased competition in genetic testing, allowing more laboratories to offer tests without infringing on patents.
5. The case has become a pivotal moment in the discussion of ethics and legality surrounding genetic patenting and its impact on healthcare and innovation.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics change the landscape of genetic patenting?
  • The Supreme Court's ruling fundamentally changed the landscape of genetic patenting by establishing that naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented. This decision allowed for greater accessibility to genetic testing and research, as many companies could now operate without fear of infringing on Myriad's patents. It encouraged competition in the field of genetic testing, making services more affordable and available to patients seeking information about genetic risks.
• Evaluate the implications of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics case on future biotechnology innovations.
  • The implications of this case on future biotechnology innovations are substantial. By prohibiting patents on natural DNA, the ruling encourages open research and development within the scientific community, fostering an environment where new discoveries can be made without legal barriers. However, it also raises questions about how synthetic biology and engineered sequences will be treated under patent law, which could shape investment decisions and research priorities moving forward.
• Assess the impact of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics ruling on healthcare access and patient rights in genetic testing.
  • The ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics significantly impacts healthcare access and patient rights by ensuring that patients have broader options for genetic testing without being limited by restrictive patents. This enhances patients' rights to access critical health information regarding their genetic predispositions without incurring high costs associated with patented tests. Ultimately, this decision promotes health equity by making vital genetic testing services more accessible to a diverse population, encouraging preventative measures and informed healthcare decisions.

Related terms

Patents: Legal protections granted to inventors that give them exclusive rights to their inventions for a specified period, incentivizing innovation.

cDNA: Complementary DNA synthesized from a messenger RNA template, which can be patented as it does not occur naturally in the human body.

Biotechnology: The use of biological processes and organisms to develop products and technologies, often involving genetic manipulation.