Roam, Genes, Roam!

Other reports on the ruling that human genes can't be patented, from Bad Science (which notes that "There are three reasons why gene patents like these are stupid: only the last one is funny") and Our Bodies Our Blog (Our Bodies, Ourselves was a plaintiff in the case, along with the ACLU).

Good info.

.

Genes Shall Roam Freely!

There's something a little creepy about the idea that someone could take out a patent on human genes (or any genes, really, but it's closer to home when they're human), so I was interested to see this ACLU update from Monday about a district court ruling saying that such patents are invalid.

I don't think anyone has ever expressed interest in acquiring legal ownership of any genes expressed by my personally, but if they do, they're doomed to sorrow and disappointment! So there.

.

Mmm...Cloned Worm Genes

Can I resist a post from Genetics & Health with a title like Cloned Worm Gene Acts To Glue Bones? I cannot.

I am intrigued by the idea of using glue based on cloned worm genes to repair fractured bones. If it works (and note that this theoretical product has yet to be tested in living creatures, so it might turn out to be a total failure), that would be awesome. Fixing broken bones is good!

On the other hand, consider that people who had this treatment would effectively become part worm. You could have worm genes! Imagine the playground taunts!

As opposed to being taunted for being part construct, if you have your bones held together with plates and screws instead.

Can you live with that?

Yeah, me too. Theoretically.

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.

Research and Genes

So the Personal Genome Project has posted data from the first ten volunteers, and will soon be enrolling the next 100 (of an eventual 100,000).

The site reports that interest is high, but if you're intrigued, you too can register and receive recruitment information when available. At this time, participants must visit "a medical center in Boston" (possibly Boston Medical Center!--they don't say) at their own expense, so if you live in Nome, Alaska, or one of the numerous other places located far away from Boston, take that into account.

Me, I'm curious, and interested in the advancement of scientific learning, and what with my precious, precious red hair genes I am also thoroughly convinced of the value of my genetic code, so I'll be thinking about it.

I would also like to highlight Harvard's extremely thorough approach to informed consent, which involves actually passing a test to ensure that you understand something about genetic material, gene transmission, expression and regulation, genetics and society, and the project. It's hard core. They've got a study guide and everything!

I've taken part in a variety of research studies, and have always had to read the forms and been given a chance to ask questions, but I've never had to pass a test. The closest thing was once when someone asked if I could explain in my own words what the project was about. (I couldn't explain it now, it was years ago, but at the time I was all over it. You better believe my consent was informed.)

Anyhow, I think this is an interesting approach, and serves to really emphasize both the potential value of the research, and the importance of the choice participants make to be involved. Putting this level of personal information on the web for all to see is not something to do casually.

Or maybe it is, these days. Excuse me while I go Twitter an update about my genetic code.

You Could Only Look Like You

Genetics and Health calls our attention to an article from the Irish Times suggesting that it may one day be possible to tell what people look like from their DNA, by mapping correlations of specific gene combinations "with fixed points on the face, for example eye corners and separation, corners of the mouth, nose tip and length and face edges."

A question: can you tell a person's age from DNA? Because otherwise, a depicted face could be way off just because people can look a lot different at 15 than they do at 60, even assuming that eye corners and separation, etc., are consistent.

Let's not even consider such variables as weight, facial hair, features that can be adjusted with cosmetic surgery, and anything else that changes an appearance but that I'm not considering right now because I haven't thought of it.

Important News Items

Herewith, the things I read today that made me go "hmm."

Mother Jones asks, "Should You Fear the Killer Robots?"

Well, gosh. How can I say no? It pretty much always seems like a good idea to fear killer robots.

The piece is an interview with Peter Singer, the author of a new book on military technology called Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. Apparently we should indeed fear the killer robots, or at least be wary of them. 

But outright terror seems like an appropriate response to me.

Health Populi reports increased consumer spending on wine and vitamins. The piece suggests that this is a good thing, because it means people are concerned with their health (red wine has that resveratrol, after all). 

This may be so, but I have to wonder, are people buying wine because it's healthy, or because they need some comfort in these trying times? Perhaps we should ask if people are buying good wine.

On reflection, I guess if people were just looking to get drunk, cheap vodka is more economical, so yeah, I'll go with the positive spin.

And Genetics and Health points out a company called MyRedHairGene that (for a mere $119, or $214 for two) promises to test your DNA for genes associated with red hair. There are apparently several variations on a gene called MC1R that will do: a handy piece of trivia for whenever this comes up in conversation.

This is all well and good, but I already know I have a gene variation associated with red hair, so what I'm really interested in is ensuring that this gene triumphs over any other, lesser genes that might try to interfere with my hypothetical offspring's head. 

Can you make my gene invincible, MyRedHairGene? 'Cause that would get my attention. 

Failing that, can you somehow make sure that my offspring's other parent, should he also be a carrier, passes on the proper MC1R variant and not some other shade? Do you offer a way to select for hair color?

Yes, it's true: I'm making light of genetic testing of embryos. For the record, I do not support embryo selection based on MC1R genes, should you ever happen to be in the position of choosing from among several embryos. (Although, all else being equal, if you have to base the decision on something...)

I did learn some interesting tidbits from the MyRedHairGene site, which offers a user-friendly primer on hair color genetics. I'm not taking it very seriously, but I'm curious what sort of response it will get (or has gotten; it's not clear from the site how long it's been in operation).

It claims to have been founded in response to "steady requests" from people wanting to find out if they or their children are carriers, so perhaps there's a real market for this.

Well, I'm all for information! Especially about something as important as red hair. So red on, brave company!

Bad Genes! Back, Back!

Genetics and Health presents this report of a study suggesting that disease-causing genes go way back in the tale of life. 

Like, back to the first cell. 

So apparently disease isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Sigh...guess I'll have to keep drinking wine.

But I Don't Want to Wait That Long!

Nevertheless, this promises to be interesting and useful information once it's collected.

Genetics and Health observes that a study is beginning to determine whether having genetic information about their personal health risks will actually cause people to make choices for their lives that result in better health.

If I know I have a genetic susceptibility to Illness X, will I take special care to avoid other things that might contribute to developing it? Will I lead a well-planned and healthy life to make sure I limit my non-genetic risk as much as possible, since I know the genes are against me?

Or will I just think, "heck, Illness X is gonna get me anyway, bring on the alcohol/tobacco/forbidden foodstuffs/risky sex/side-effectsy-medications/explosives/bad television/recreational drugs"?

Since personalized genetic testing has not been available for long, it's not surprising that we don't know how to answer those questions. Good thing the Scripps Translational Science Institute is starting a 20-year study to find out.

I am, as indicated, saddened that it will be a while before we hear anything from this study, but that's research for you. 

In the meantime, since I haven't had my own genetic code examined (I'm curious, but not enough to pay for it), I personally will continue with my accustomed habits regarding alcohol/tobacco/forbidden foodstuffs/risky sex/side-effectsy medications/explosives/bad television/recreational drugs. 

Especially explosives.