Dibs on the Red Hair Gene

Interesting story in the New York Times of a lawsuit challenging a patent on a gene.

The case is specifically about BRCA1 and BRCA2, but could have bearing on future questions related to whether or not it's possible to own, and to control the use of, this kind of information.

As the NYT explains,

The decision to allow gene patents was controversial from the start; patents are normally not granted for products of nature or laws of nature. The companies successfully argued that they had done something that made the genes more than nature’s work: they had isolated and purified the DNA, and thus had patented something they had created — even though it corresponded to the sequence of an actual gene.

The lawsuit argues that ownership of a gene sequence can inhibit research (since working with the gene risks patent infringement). There also seems to be a sort of reflexive distaste for the idea that a company can own the legal rights to something that is a component of someone's body.

Which, I must say, I completely understand. It just seems weird, doesn't it?

I'll be interested to see how this works out, although it will no doubt be some time before there's any conclusion.