Held: Genes are products of nature

Today the US Supreme Court rules that there cannot be patents on genomic DNA information (PDF – 139kb), only modified DNA products like cDNA. Note that the decision was effectively unanimous, the opinion was written by Thomas, and Scalia’s concurrent opinion is essentially an admission of ignorance in the specialty field. I have not had time to read the full opinion, but at initial review this seems like a very reasonable result. Naturally occurring DNA sequences are, well, natural. Sequences modified with intent may be patent eligible. It will be interesting to see in the future if discovery of naturally occurring sequences that are identical to patented sequences modified naively to match a natural variant will invalidate patents.

Myriad’s DNA claim falls within the law of nature exception.Myriad’s principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes…Myriad did not create or alter either the genetic information encoded in the BCRA1 and BCRA2 genes or the genetic structure of the DNA. It found an important and useful gene, but groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry…Myriad’s patent descriptions highlight the problem with its claims: They detail the extensive process of discovery, but extensive effort alone is insufficient to satisfy §101’s demands. Myriad’s claims are not saved by the fact that isolating DNA from the human genome severs the chemical bonds that bind gene molecules together. – SCOTUS (PDF -139kb)

Get ya some….Experience

Image courtesy of Elyce Feliz
Image courtesy of Elyce Feliz

Would you like to know what those evil reviewers are saying about your first RO1 submission? Want to learn what separates fundable and unfundable grant submissions? Apparently, there’s a program for that! The Early Career Reviewer Program recruits new principal investigators (PIs)(regardless of whether a researcher has ever received NIH funding) to join study sections relevant to their field and participate in the review process. Continue reading “Get ya some….Experience”

Technology vs Poverty

Image courtesy of Carl Parkes
Image courtesy of Carl Parkes

Technology and poverty seem to be intrinsically at odds with one another. Technology is a luxury, right? While the “smartphone” has been hugely influential in wealthy nations, simple pay as you go cell phones have also transformed poor, rural areas and they are being used to monitor market prices of crops via text messages. This critical information can help a farmer decide what to bring to market and where, to get the best prices. The stripped down basic cell phone could greatly improve a farmer’s income. It’s possible that science and technology could be key components in alleviating poverty all over the world. Continue reading “Technology vs Poverty”

Duly noted, Charles. Duly noted.

But then it is very bad for ones health to work too much – Charles Darwin

From The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 2: 1837-1843 via Maria Popova.

STEM Flame War!

Image courtesy of Brookhaven National Laboratory
Image courtesy of Brookhaven National Laboratory

It’s not often that you find a number of online comments on a scientific journal’s website. It’s even rarer to discover something that is bordering on a scientist flame war (complete with requests for evidence!). Colin Macilwain asserts in a recent editorial in Nature that he thinks programs to encourage STEM education are a spectacular waste of money. Now this particular stance is already going to incite some backlash. He says that all the overlapping programs are wasting money and that making more scientists will just depress wages by flooding the market.

What ensues in the comments section is a debate over whether increasing scientific literacy for all is important in today’s society and whether there is truly a shortage of qualified scientists to fill open positions. I was excited to see so many scientists engaged in discussion of STEM policy and with well articulated opinions on the subject. Not everyone agrees on the ultimate goal of STEM education, whether it be to raise the level of science literacy universally or to increase the number of students who go on to careers in science. As it is, there is a glut of biologists who are struggling to find employment, though I think fields like computer science may not be experiencing the same problems. I personally, don’t agree with Macilwain, but I think more scientists should be thinking about science and society and participating in the discussion. Science literacy for all!