|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
LINE1, a genetic parasite, can also do this as an acidental byproduct of its own
reproduction, producing numerous "retro-genes" which have been reverse
transcribed (cDNA copied) back into the genome. This has had impacts on human
evolution. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
I concur. The cDNA at issue in the patent does not occur frequently in nature,
but since both the enzyme required and the relevant mRNA must from time to time
both be present in some cells, the cDNA will occasionally be made naturally.
The starting and ending points might be slightly different, but that is
irrelevant when the cDNA is used in this sort of test.
Even at the time Myriad did the work it was both trivial to make a cDNA from a
desired mRNA, and it was such a common operation that the idea that applying
that transformation would render the sequence patentable is ludicrous. The
closest analogy I can think of is that some English sentence would not be
copyrightable if it used Arial, but changing the font to Times New Roman would
be a "creative act" and render it copyrightable.
The Supreme's cDNA ruling is a travesty - it only makes sense if none of them
understood the science.
Can one appeal to the Supreme Court to amend its own ruling when the logic they
used was based on a gross misunderstanding of the laws of nature???
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
The supreme court got this wrong, presumably because the case wasn't argued
fully. Every adult woman with either BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes will be expressing
them as intron-free RNA. If she also has HIV, or any other reverse transcribing
virus, her cells will contain the corresponding cDNA, entirely manufactured by
nature. The first time someone applies for a patent directly for a cDNA, this
will almost certainly be argued, and based on the supreme court precedent, the
argument will be conclusive.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
