Learn what you want to learn with Skillshare for free for two months at the

link in the description.

Imagine an patented apple.

Just like only Nabisco can sell Oreos and only Unilever

can sell Marmite, imagine there was only one company worldwide with the right to harvest

apples.

That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Now imagine a patented gene sequence.

Imagine a single company had exclusive rights to all usages of a particular section of the

human genome.

That would also be absurd, right?

Back in 1990, renowned geneticist Mary-Claire King made an announcement that shook

the world—she and her research team had discovered that somewhere in this section

of the 17th chromosome was a gene linked to breast

cancer.

She didn't know exactly where it was, or what it was, or why it was linked to cancer,

all she knew was that it was there.

What followed was a race to find this so-called

“breast-cancer gene.”

Colleges, companies, and governments all devoted enormous resources

to finding the gene that could tell people, with

relatively accuracy, whether they would contract cancer years before any other test.

With preventative mastectomies, survival rates

for this type of cancer could skyrocket.

Then, in 1994, it happened.

A team of researchers from the University of Utah announced they had found

the gene—BRCA1.

Soon after, they found another similar gene with nearly identical affects

—BRCA2.

Females found to have a mutation in one of these two genes have an 80%

chance of contracting breast cancer in their lifetimes, but the good news was that you

could test for it.

This was a life-changing breakthrough for the thousands found to have the mutation

yearly.

Some of the researchers from the University of Utah saw the commercial application

of this and founded a company—Myriad Genetics—which soon patented the two genes,

quite literally.

In their patent document is the full genetic sequence of the BRCA1 gene.

21,328 characters of G's, C's, A's, and T's

that represent what is in the human body.

They patented something inside you, something not all that

different than patenting that apple.

The apple is too just a long sequence of G's, C's, A's,

and T's.

The only difference is that it's longer.

Myriad genetics, as the only company globally allowed

to do anything with the BRCA genes, had an absolute monopoly on testing.

If you wanted to see if you had the gene mutation that would

give you a heads up on cancer, you had to go to Myriad, and so it came at a price—up

to $4,000 even though the actual process of performing

the test cost only a fraction of that.

This was almost certainly unjust, and so the ACLU took notice.

They, along with a group of plaintiffs, sued Myriad Genetics

on the basis that their patents were on non-patentable material—the human genome.

Much like you can't patent an apple because you didn't create

the apple, the plaintiffs argued that Myriad couldn't patent the genes because they didn't

create them, nature did, but Myriad was not alone in the process of patenting genes.

In fact, at the time, 21 percent of the human

genome had been patented.

The District Court ended up ruling in the plaintiffs favor, so

Myriad appealed and the case went to a Federal Appeals court that ended up ruling in Myriad's

favor so the ACLU petitioned for their case to be

heard in the Supreme Court.

They agreed, and on April 15th, 2013 the case of the Association for

Molecular Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc reached Washington.

In a stunning turn of events, all nine Supreme Court justices sided in the

the plaintiffs favor therefore virtually ending the

process of human genome patents, but was it right?

Up to this point Myriad has probably seemed like the bad guy, but consider this.

The individuals who founded Myriad were the ones

that discovered the effect of the gene mutation in

question, so shouldn't they be rewarded for their years of work?

That's really the question with all patents.

On one hand patents drive innovation because they allow companies to monetize

discoveries that cost huge amounts to research and develop, but on the other hand restrictive

patents and monopolies stop these innovations from getting to the people who need them most.

Without the ability to make money off of genetic testing, it can be argued that many companies

won't have the motivation to research genetic predispositions.

So that brings us to the critical question: what should be patentable?

There are certainly cases where patents on genetic material have helped.

In this age where editing genome sequences is cheap and

easy, it's very possible for companies to modify

organisms in a way that make them true, original creations that can be legitimately patented.

For example, the apple we talked about at the

beginning could not be patented, but a genetically modified apple—that's fair

game.

In fact, patents on genetically modified food have existed for decades.

Golden Rice is a much lauded yet controversial variety of genetically

modified rice that includes a high amount of beta-carotene which helps treat vitamin-a

deficiency —an affliction that kills up to two million

individuals yearly in developing countries.

As a crop that is cheap, easy to cultivate, and already

popular in developing countries, a fortified variety of

rice can help millions yearly.

The rice does not, however, have much of a commercial application

since the places that need it are the places without the money to buy other treatments

to vitamin a deficiency.

Nonetheless, by holding the patent, the owners are able to manage the distribution

of the seeds by giving them for free to any farmer who makes less than $10,000 a year

while funding the program with limited commercial

applications elsewhere.

Although, some companies have a more commercial focus.

93% of corn in the US is genetically modified and much of that comes

from Monsanto.

Monsanto sells different varieties of genetically modified corn and

other crops under different brands just like you

would any other product.

There's SmartStax Rib complete which is less susceptible to

destructive insects; there's Roundup Ready corn that isn't affected by Roundup, a

herbicide that kills weeds; and there's DroughtGard corn which is more tolerant to

lower levels of water during dry years.

When a farmer wants to use one of these variants of corn

they just go to a dealer and buy the seeds like any other product, except the difference

between seeds and traditional products is that seeds

grow into plants which make more seeds.

If Monsanto allowed farmers to keep and share their seeds

they would only be able to sell the product once,

so they don't.

Those who buy the product are required to sign an agreement to not save or share

any seed and those who do and get caught are met by a hefty lawsuit.

But this isn't really different than any other product.

This is their form of rights management.

When you watch a video on Netflix, in the terms of use, you

have agreed to only use their product for yourself just like the farmers agreed to only

use the Monsanto seed for themselves even though, with both products, it's rather

easy to share.

Just like with patented gene sequences, there's the question of where the line is

between patents improving and harming the greater good.

If companies are not able to recuperate research and development cost, they

won't research or develop.

In a free market, farmers can choose whether or not to buy the

Monsanto seeds given the terms and, overwhelmingly, they do because the seeds make more

money than they cost.

It's just simple math.

You should form your own opinion on patented genetically modified plants and seeds,

but it's indisputable that there are upsides that can be argued, though, what about animals?

In 1980 the US supreme court decided that genetically

modified animals could be patented if they were altered in a meaningful way from their

original selves.

European patent law considers the same true.

In fact, you might already be eating genetically modified animals without even

knowing it.

The company AquaBounty Technologies successfully created a variant16 of

salmon that grows at a faster rate and so they patented it—the AquAdvantage salmon—and

in 2016, it hit the shelves in Canada.

Researchers have found the salmon safe to eat, but it is, of

course, different.

If the genetically modified salmon were to be accidentally released into the

wild, some are concerned that their genetic makeup could spread by outcompeting the normal

salmon, although in computer models it was concluded that the normal salmon would prevail

since it has a higher fertility rate.

In the US, the AquAdvantage salmon has been approved by the

FDA, but it cannot be sold until labeling standards for genetically food are developed.

But just imagine the next step.

Genetically modified humans are coming and whether or

not companies will be allowed to patent their processes will have a huge effect on how

commonplace human gene editing will become.

The Myriad genetics case only decided that patents on naturally occurring gene sequences

were not allowed, but the decision that allowed patents on genetically modified animals specifically

excluded humans meaning that as of now you would not be granted a patent for human

gene editing in the US, but there are plenty of other

countries.

Most have not even considered this question.

If you imagine a world with patented, commercial human gene editing, you are imaging

a world where you can decide if your child will have blue eyes or not, if they're tall

or not, if they're smart or not, if they are autistic or not,

if they will have heart disease or not, if they will have alzheimer's or not, if they

will have cancer or not.

The real question is not if it's ethical to allow patented human gene editing.

It's if it's ethical to not.

If you want to learn more about genetic research, there's a great course that I

recommend on Skillshare called “An Introduction To Bioinformatics.”

As you've heard before, Skillshare is a great source of over

18,000 classes about anything and everything.

This specific course covers the rather interesting subject of bioinformatics which is the

interdisciplinary field combining computer science and genetic research building software

to analyze genetic information.

This one and a third hour course gives a great overview of

the topic and you can access it for free by signing up for Skillshare at skl.sh/wendover2.

If bioinformatics isn't what you're interested

in, you should at least sign up and look at all

their other courses because with so many, you're bound to find one you're interested

in.

Learn something new in the new year and sign up for Skillshare here to get two free

months of learning.