2026-09-20T09:08:42Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/1013642022-08-09T20:17:26Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Thomas Levenson.
Schwartz, Sarah L. (Sarah Leah)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Comparative Media Studies.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Graduate Program in Science Writing
2016-02-29T15:02:55Z
2016-02-29T15:02:55Z
2015
2015
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101364
939625925
Thesis: S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Comparative Media Studies, 2015.
Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 49-54).
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The case asked one question: are human genes patentable? Gene patents became commonplace during the biotechnology revolution of the 1980s, but generated a complex web of moral, legal, and biological questions. While some viewed gene patents as necessary in promoting and sustaining innovation, others felt that owning the code of life was morally and legally misguided. This tension played a central role in the early years of the Human Genome Project, and continued as people experienced the challenging consequences of assigning property rights to our shared biology. Several patients with genetic diseases were forced to navigate limited or expensive testing because of a company's genetic monopoly. Some scientists worried that their research might infringe a patent. When the Supreme Court decided the Myriad trial, ruling that unaltered human genes were not patent-eligible, their decision marked a surprising and historic shift in the relationship between patent law and fundamental biology-but questions and uncertainty about a future without gene patents remain.
by Sarah L. Schwartz.
S.M.
54 pages
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Comparative Media Studies.
Owning the code of life : human gene patents in America
Human gene patents in America
Thesis
application/pdf
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="c623ec49-1003-4ef8-be19-567472ef01f7">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Owning the code of life : human gene patents in America</Title>
<Subtitle>Human gene patents in America</Subtitle>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2015</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Schwartz, Sarah L. (Sarah Leah)</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Comparative Media Studies.</Keyword>
<Abstract>In 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The case asked one question: are human genes patentable? Gene patents became commonplace during the biotechnology revolution of the 1980s, but generated a complex web of moral, legal, and biological questions. While some viewed gene patents as necessary in promoting and sustaining innovation, others felt that owning the code of life was morally and legally misguided. This tension played a central role in the early years of the Human Genome Project, and continued as people experienced the challenging consequences of assigning property rights to our shared biology. Several patients with genetic diseases were forced to navigate limited or expensive testing because of a company's genetic monopoly. Some scientists worried that their research might infringe a patent. When the Supreme Court decided the Myriad trial, ruling that unaltered human genes were not patent-eligible, their decision marked a surprising and historic shift in the relationship between patent law and fundamental biology-but questions and uncertainty about a future without gene patents remain.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>