naturally occurring DNA vs Synthetic DNA?? This is an alarming ruling i think. While on the face it seems to make sense to differentiate patent-ability of DNA by natural occurrence vs synthetic DNAs, i have my doubts on how and what would deem to be naturally occurring DNA. Given the standard practice in science of throwing out Outliers, am very cynical about the impact of this ruling. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf
Now, I clearly don’t know much more than high school knowledge about DNA and cDNA, but my fears are based on the fact that this ruling is being phrased with a terminology(i.e: natural vs synthetic) and will become a precedent for future rulings. I am worried (paranoid?) that this phrasing can and will be used to twist some future patent laws and might really just have set genetics based life extension, regeneration etc.. behind.
After reading up (rather lightly, i must add) i think the patent-ability of those crafted genes/RNA molecules (to avoid or counteract activation of those BRCA genes) is fairly reasonable*.
Nevertheless, am afraid, the ruling and the way it has been phrased will echo in the legal departments for more than a few more decades.
Reg: that outliers comment, my core suspicion or objection is that this may/will lead to a body/committee of scientists to decide what is natural and what is not. I am afraid they would conclude a normal distribution and sample a whole lot of people and throw out quite a few DNAs, all without anyone really understanding the extent of the societal/legal implications involved.
Disclaimer: Please correct me if my gaps in understanding or knowledge are clouding my reasoning ability here.
*– Am presuming the company did fund most of the research and did not just build a small application based on existing research, but am not qualified to judge that.
Update: And one more link