I’m hoping in 500 years, my DNA sequence is found on a perfectly preserved micro SD card and my clone gets to meet President Camacho and take on Beef Supreme and the Dildozer on Monday Night Rehabilitation.
However, on June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc, that human genes cannot be patented because DNA is a “product of nature.” All gene patents were invalidated with this ruling. However, the ruling did not prohibit the patenting of DNA that is manipulated (i.e., no longer a product of nature) or processes for identifying DNA sequences.
the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc, that human genes cannot be patented because DNA is a “product of nature.” All gene patents were invalidated with this ruling.
Maybe you can cite the exact statement we’re all missing. You can’t because the trouble you’re running into is that we did read it, and it seems perhaps you did not, but you can’t try. Summary: can’t patent unmanipulated genes. Can patent manipulated genes and sequencing processes.
It isn’t yours, if you use them you signed it all over to them. They patented your DNA.
I’m hoping in 500 years, my DNA sequence is found on a perfectly preserved micro SD card and my clone gets to meet President Camacho and take on Beef Supreme and the Dildozer on Monday Night Rehabilitation.
That’s the optimistic timeline, we still have to actually get there first.
I am sure you can come with what a pessimistic timeline would look like.
I don’t have to, I watched Planet of the Apes
You can’t patent DNA… They can sell it though, with a simple TOS update (if they even need to).
https://geneticspolicy.nccrcg.org/policy-area/gene-patents/
For those too lazy to click through:
So if a lab rat adds, deletes or edits a person’s DNA it is no longer a ‘product of nature’?
Apparently.
did you paste the link to admit you were wrong?
Did you stop reading before you should have?
The monsters.
Well, that originally autocorrected to “mobsters,” but I suppose that’d work in a certain context, too.
That’s not true in the slightest. I agree with the fuck 23&me sentiment but you don’t have to make things up to criticize them.
https://geneticspolicy.nccrcg.org/policy-area/gene-patents/
tl;dr you’re mistaken
OK if nobody’s going to bother reading beyond that I give up. Be ignorant.
Maybe you can cite the exact statement we’re all missing. You can’t because the trouble you’re running into is that we did read it, and it seems perhaps you did not, but you can’t try. Summary: can’t patent unmanipulated genes. Can patent manipulated genes and sequencing processes.
did you not read your link?
Did you not?