Australian Court Rejects Petition Challenging Human Genetic Patent

Two medical research companies from the US and Australia have won a landmark case after an Australian court rejected the petition from a cancer group which had challenged the patenting of human genetic material.

The case hinged on whether a valid patent can be granted to cover naturally occurring nucleic acids, the building blocks of living organisms -- in this case the so-called breast cancer gene BRCA1.

About Genetic Testing
Genetic testing helps to confirm a genetic condition in an individual and involves q complex laboratory techniques

Federal Court Justice John Nicholas rejected the argument that BRCA1, a genetic mutation associated with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women, could not be patented because it was a naturally occurring substance.

He ruled instead in favour of the two medical research companies that hold the patent, US-based Myriad Genetics and Melbourne-based Genetic Technologies Ltd.

"There is no doubt that naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside the cells of the human body cannot be the subject of a valid patent," his judgement concluded. DNA and RNA are types of nucleic acid.

Epigenetics
In the recent years ‘epigenetics’ represents inheritable changes in gene expression that do not include DNA alterations.

"However, the disputed claims do not cover naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside such cells.

"The disputed claims extend only to naturally occurring DNA and RNA which have been extracted from cells obtained from the human body and purged of other biological materials with which they were associated."

Genetically Modified Food / Genetically Modified Organism [GMO]
Genetically modified food and genetically modified organism (GMO) is the altered genetic material (DNA) in food or organisms, which does not occur naturally.

The decision is the first in the country to consider whether isolated DNA or RNA sequences can be patented and lawyers for Cancer Voices Australia, which brought the case, have argued it raises ethical issues about the commercialisation of the human body.

The judgement is a blow to the cancer campaigners, with the woman who brought the case, Yvonne D'Arcy, leaving the court in tears.

"To tell the truth I'm very disappointed," she told reporters. "We were doing this for future generations, and I'm just so disappointed."

Cancer Voices Australia also expressed its disappointment in losing the case which it said was for people with all diseases with genetic markers.

"We think that is it very important that information about people's genes (and) genetic makeup be freely available to researchers, not only in Australia, but around the world," Cancer Voices' John Stubbs told the ABC.

Source-AFP