Gene patents

I saw an article in New Scientist today that stated that a patent on the gene making people more susceptible to breast cancer has been reinstated. Apparently, you can patent genes and the company (Myriad Genetics, Inc, press release here) that discovered the gene sequence making people more susceptible to breast cancer had tried to patent it before but it had been declared invalid because you can't patent something that occurs in nature because they are not inventions. But because the patent doesn't include parts of the gene sequence that aren't actually used by the gene, they don't occur in nature. They only occur in the human body. There are large sections of our DNA that actually are not used - or at least scientists don't know what they are used for. How about if I try to patent Mount Washington but I don't include the parts where you can't walk? Does that count?

Well, I don't agree that genes should be patentable. Whether the company doesn't include non-working parts of the gene or not, they should not be able to patent a part of the human body that they had no part in designing or making. Just because the company went to a lot of time and expense discovering the gene sequence, it doesn't follow that they should get exclusive use of that information. I figure there is one quick way to take care of this. Anyone who is diagnosed with breast cancer from now on should sue the company. If they want to "own" that gene, let them take responsibility for it.