The SCOTUS unanimously ruled that human DNA cannot be patented, but that which is artificially created (cDNA) can be. After researching and reading up on DNA, cDNA and RNA, I have two thoughts:
It doesn't make sense.
How can cDNA (complementary DNA) be patentable, if the cDNA of (in this case) BCRA-1 and BCRA-2 (breast-cancer genes) is merely cloned DNA of BRCA-1 and BRCA-2? It would seem that the SCOTUS is setting itself up for further challenges as now, companies and individuals will be rushing to patent the cDNA of a multitude of genes in the human body. I understand that companies need to see payday in order to pursue the necessary research to figure out the switches in our DNA, but you know, this is a little ridiculous.
Man's creation?
Odd don't you think, that the group of conservatives on the Court would rule that the genesis of DNA dictates whether or not it can be patented? It goes against the concept of God and the power of creation in the strictest interpretation, that any part of the building blocks of life could be patented. Under the laws of Nature, which are by definition the laws of God, manipulation of a biological construct is His domain. That is to say, whether or not a synthetic means towards DNA copying works or doesn't, is entirely up to God / Nature and not by the will of man. The SCOTUS even hinted at the role God / Nature plays in the process of cloning DNA, saying that, "Its order of the exons may be dictated by nature, but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when introns are removed from a DNA sequence to make cDNA."
Now, if you read that carefully, the SCOTUS is saying that, yes, God's / Nature's rules dictate whether or not the design is proper, but the lab technician is in his own right, Master of this creation: cDNA. Now, if you're not religious, you're probably just rolling your eyes. But if you are religious, then the conservative members of the SCOTUS are heretics for suggesting that Man can be credited as the Creator, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment