{"title":"The Commons as Accumulation Strategy","authors":"Coleman Nye","doi":"10.1215/01642472-7370967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"DOI 10.1215/01642472-7370967 © 2019 Duke University Press On June 13, 2013, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that isolated, unmodi ed DNA cannot be patented, in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. — a case that has been called the Brown v. Board of Education of genetic science.1 The Court’s decision struck down biotech company Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s near twentyyear exclusive patent rights over the biological substance of the BRCA tumor suppressor genes, popularly called the “breast cancer genes” due to their association with elevated breast and ovarian cancer risk. The cluster of patents Myriad had acquired in the mid1990s gave the company rights to all potential uses and prospective values of the genes, providing the corporation with a legal monopoly over the use of BRCA genes in cancer research, diagnostics, and treatment for twenty years (expiring in 2015). Unlike other biotech companies that have collaborated with advocacy groups and medical researchers, Myriad aggressively enforced its legal right to exclude others from accessing, researching, or testing for BRCA gene mutations on a national and international scale.2 The description of Myriad as the Brown of genetic science referenced the unusual civil rights – based framing of the patent case, as it focused explicitly on the segregating in uence of patents on scienti c research and patient access.3 US patent law has generally limited its purview to highly technical economic issues that are addressed by research institutions, corporations, and lawyers who are seen to “represent the interests of citizens by representing the interests of innovation and the market.”4 In Myriad, however, researchers, citizens, and legal counsel challenged the The Commons as Accumulation Strategy","PeriodicalId":47701,"journal":{"name":"Social Text","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Text","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-7370967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
共同性作为积累策略
2013年6月13日,在分子病理学协会诉Myriad Genetics, Inc.一案中,美国最高法院一致裁定,分离的、未经修饰的DNA不能获得专利,该案件被称为布朗诉基因科学教育委员会案法院的决定推翻了生物技术公司Myriad Genetics, Inc.对BRCA肿瘤抑制基因的生物物质近20年的独家专利权,BRCA肿瘤抑制基因通常被称为“乳腺癌基因”,因为它们与乳腺癌和卵巢癌风险升高有关。Myriad在20世纪90年代中期获得的一系列专利赋予了该公司对这些基因的所有潜在用途和潜在价值的权利,使该公司在癌症研究、诊断和治疗中使用BRCA基因的法律垄断长达20年(2015年到期)。与其他与倡导团体和医学研究人员合作的生物技术公司不同,Myriad积极行使其在国内和国际范围内排除他人获取、研究或测试BRCA基因突变的合法权利麦利亚德公司被描述为基因科学的布朗案,参考了专利案件中不寻常的以民权为基础的框架,因为它明确地关注了科学研究和患者获取专利之间的隔离美国专利法通常将其权限限制在由研究机构、公司和律师解决的高度技术性经济问题上,这些问题被视为“通过代表创新和市场的利益来代表公民的利益”。然而,在《无数》一书中,研究人员、公民和法律顾问将“公地”作为“积累策略”提出了挑战
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。