Here's a bit of good news: the Supreme Court has effectively said you can't patent genes, though in typical Supreme Court fashion, it hedged a bit. Basically, they found that merely separating out naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but that synthetically made "complementary DNA" or (cDNA) can be patentable. This case has been going on for quite some time, involving a company called Myriad Genetics, which isolated two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, where mutations indicate a high likelihood of developing breast cancer. Myriad then set up a very lucrative, extremely high priced set of tests to find those mutations and argued that others testing for those genes violated its patents -- because stopping breast cancer should be prohibitively expensive, apparently.

The unanimous ruling found that merely separating out naturally occurring genes cannot be patentable, because that would be ridiculous:

It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. Nor did Myriad create or alter the genetic structure of DNA. Instead, Myriad’s principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes within chromosomes 17 and 13. The question is whether this renders the genes patentable.

And that doesn't make much sense under patent law:

Myriad’s patents would, if valid, give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (or any strand of 15 or more nucleotides within the genes)by breaking the covalent bonds that connect the DNA to the rest of the individual’s genome.

Myriad's main argument was that it basically had to put a lot of work into finding and isolating the genes, but the court noted that "Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy [the conditions for patent eligibility]."

The court also rejects the idea that just because the US Patent Office regularly granted gene patents for years, it should be allowed to continue to do so. The court does say that complementary DNA, made by Myriad, can be patentable:

... the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made. cDNA retains the naturally occurring exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which it was derived. As a result, cDNA is not a “product of nature” and is patent eligible...

The court also points out that you can still patent a form of a test for DNA, if that method is innovative, but you can't patent the underlying genetic structure if it's naturally occurring. However, Myriad's method was not new or innovative. As the court notes, it was "well understood by geneticists at the time."

On the whole this is a good ruling that will invalidate a large number of bogus gene patents. While patent extremists are complaining that this will destroy the biotech field, more reasonable minds are pointing out that it should have little effect. I'd argue that, if anything, it may drive greater efforts in biotech, since companies can now do more exploration on genes without fearing being sued by someone who discovered and isolated a particular gene first -- and this should also lead to significantly cheaper genetic testing, creating even more opportunities for biotech firms to innovate on top of widespread genetic testing.

There are a bunch of people out there who are into turning themselves into cyborgs or adding to their natural-born abilities. Some of them say they're transhumanists, but others are just super geeks willing to experiment on themselves for fun. (Most folks are probably willing to wait a bit to make sure brain implants are actually safe.) Here are just a few projects that are working on giving lab rats some cool new upgrades.

• Rats have been given an artificial sense -- the ability to detect infrared light. An IR sensor was attached to the rat's head and after a month of training, the animal could reliably sense when researchers directed otherwise invisible IR beams of light on it. [url]
• Some neuroengineers have developed a fully implantable and wirelessly rechargeable brain device that could serve as a brain-computer interface. This implant has lasted for over a year in lab animals, and it can observe, record and process information directly from dozens of brain neurons. [url]
• Rat brains on two separate continents have been connected to work in tandem. The researchers are already working on connecting the brains of four rats at the same time, as well as starting on brains of larger mammals.... (insert ominous music here) [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

The internet, which now connects almost everything in the world, has changed every aspect of the way we live, work, and socialize. It has also changed the way we do science, particularly in facilitating the dissemination of research results, but also in enabling scientific discoveries in ways previously unheard of. Here are a few examples of how the internet has affected (and even effected) genetic research.

• The Rare Genomics Institute may have enabled the first crowdfunded gene discovery. Pioneering a new funding model for rare disease research, RGI used crowdfunding to raise $3,550 to help sequence the genes of a 4-year-old girl with a rare genetic disorder, and identify a previously undocumented gene mutation. [url]
• The online game Phylo is tapping gamers from all over the world to help solve the Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) problem. The game is designed to take advantage of human visual intelligence to improve the sequence alignment of promoter regions in 521 genes associated with diseases from 44 vertebrate species. So far, the game has produced over 350,000 solutions, with 70% of them being more accurate than the alignments produced by a state-of-the-art computer program called MULTIZ. [url]
• Is it even possible to protect the anonymity of genetic information that has been posted online? Apparently, it isn't that difficult to uncover the identities of people whose DNA has been made public for research purposes. Using an online genealogy service, in addition to information from public records, social networks, and other websites, researchers were able to find 5 out of 10 people in their study, including their relatives, identifying 50 people in total. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

"Terminator"-like cyborgs may still be just a thing of science fiction, but modern technological advances in bionics are enabling people to regain or enhance their ability to do everyday things that most people take for granted. Here are just a few examples of some bionically enhanced people (and animals).

• Customized 3D-printed appendages are helping a ~4-year-old girl regain use of her arms. The "magic arms" (as she calls them) attach to a modular body-powered upper-limb orthotic device called the Wilmington Robotic Exoskeleton (WREX). [url]
• The Mercedes Formula One team gave a new bionic arm to a teenage fan, who was born without a left hand, after he offered to sell Mercedes advertising space on his prosthetic arm. The customized i-LIMB Pulse, created with the help of Touch Bionics, allows him to do things like grip a pen to draw pictures and write, tie his shoe laces, and catch a ball. [url]
• Researchers are studying the amazing potential of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and neuroprosthetics. BCIs work because of the neuroplasticity of the brain, which allows neurons to form new connections in response to new stimuli. People, monkeys, and rats have all demonstrated the ability to use BCIs to perform various tasks. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in biofuels due to growing concerns about global warming and rising oil prices. Biofuels are generally made by using chemicals, fermentation, and heat to break down the starches, sugars, and other molecules in plants to produce a fuel that can be used by vehicles. However, growing crops, making fertilizers and pesticides, and processing the plants into biofuel requires so much energy that it's questionable whether biofuels are really as environmentally friendly as they might seem on the surface. Plenty of research is already under way to figure out ways to make biofuel production more efficient with the help of microorganisms. Here are just a few examples.

• Companies like Luca Technologies and Next Fuel are investigating the potential for microbial methane production from coal. Their approach is to stimulate native microorganisms that feed on underground hydrocarbon deposits to produce more methane. This could make it possible to extract fuel from coal reserves that have been too expensive to mine. [url]
• Researchers at Purdue University are studying how termite digestion could help improve biofuel production. They found that protists, which live in the termite's gut, may play an important role in the insect's digestion of woody material. Further research could lead to finding enzymes that could one day be used to help improve biofuel production. [url]
• Researchers at UC Berkeley have created a biodiesel fuel using a fermentation process that was once used to make explosives in World War I. The process uses a bacterium called Clostridium acetobutylicum (also known as the "Weizmann Organism") to ferment sugar from various sources -- including corn, sugar cane, molasses, woody biomass, or plant biomass -- and produces acetone, butanol, and ethanol. The fermentation products are then converted into a mix of hydrocarbons that are similar to those in diesel fuel. The resulting fuel burns as well as petroleum-based fuel and has more energy per gallon than ethanol. [url]
• Researchers at UC San Diego have demonstrated for the first time that marine algae can also be used to produce biofuels like fresh water algae. They genetically engineered the marine alga Dunaliella tertiolecta to produce five different enzymes that could be used to convert biomass to fuel. Their finding suggests that algal biofuels could also be produced in the ocean, in the brackish water of tidelands, or even on otherwise unusable agricultural land with high salt content in the soil. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

As our planetary odometer rolls over yet again (and we thankfully didn't cease to exist after December 21st), lots of folks are coming up with new resolutions for happier, healthier lives... but what about just longer lives? Here are just a few links on extending our lifespans indefinitely.

• Do short people live longer than tall people? Studies have shown mixed results over the last 100 years, but more recent studies are leaner towards shorter people having a slightly longer life expectancy. [url]
• The immortal jellyfish has been studied for its unique ability to reverse its aging and repeat its lifecycle without dying. However, there aren't that many jellyfish experts in the world, and we still don't know much about how/why this creature can seemingly live forever. [url]
• Nature (the scientific journal) has made several articles on aging open and free to the public. The science of senescence is fascinating, even if it hasn't really resulted in immortality. Who wants to live forever, anyway? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Biotech hasn't quite advanced as far as some science fiction stories might depict, but a few amazing genetically-modified organisms look like they're just around the corner, with scientists making biofuels or reviving dinosaurs in the near future. While we should be careful messing with Mother Nature, here are just a few developments to watch out for.

• A transgenic Christmas tree could be engineered to produce green fluorescent protein and glow in the dark (and during the day) without electricity. This idea is over a decade old, so these genetically engineered pine trees should be a reality any time now. [url]
• Some genetic researchers have grown a fish with legs, creating tetrapods that look like the precursors to amphibians. A fish drumstick sounds like it'd be part of a pretty tasty entree. [url]
• Stingray leather could be a fashionable way to make really expensive custom sneakers. Rayfish claims to be able to make stingray leather shoes with custom patterns, but this is probably all a hoax (for now). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

One of the main forces driving the move to open access is the idea that if the public has already paid for research through taxation or philanthropy, then it's not reasonable to ask people to pay again in order to read the papers that are published as a result. The strength of this argument is probably why, in part, open access continues to gain wider acceptance around the world.

But the same logic could be applied to the commercialization of publicly-funded research. Why should people be asked to pay often elevated market prices demanded by companies for these products -- which naturally try to maximize profitability -- when it was the public that funded the initial work that made those products possible in the first place?

As with open access, the challenge here is to come up with an alternative approach that allows new medical treatments to be made available as widely as possible. A recent paper by John Frangioni in Nature Biotechnology, pointed out by @MaliciaRogue, offers a novel solution based on open-source development managed by a non-profit foundation:

In this open-source model, sublicensing to for-profit entities is encouraged but is nonexclusive. For-profit companies licensing the technology are encouraged to innovate on the platform, which will provide protectable IP for them, help lower the barriers to market entry and provide patients with even better versions of the technology. Open-source information exchange and evolution of the technology is encouraged rather than discouraged, with the premise that knowledge will empower for-profit companies that want to carve out IP-protected niches while empowering academic scientists with a firm grasp of the state of the art.

It's a detailed, fascinating piece that explores the current problems with the commercialization of research, including the following thoughts on why the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 has failed to boost technology transfer from the academic world to industry as originally hoped:

In the wake of Bayh-Dole, the technology transfer policy of many AMCs [academic medical centers] has been to pursue the broadest patent rights for as many inventions as possible (all at great expense), sometimes without sufficient regard for whether there is enough validation of a discovery for assets to be licensed and/or commercialized; similarly, too often, startups are spun out of AMCs without sufficient due diligence, resulting in many enterprises that fail to receive sustainable funding from the investment community.

Frangioni's approach is quite different. Since the non-profit foundation is funded by the public, the focus is on maximizing patient benefit rather than financial return. On novel way of doing that is requiring reciprocity from those using the foundation's knowledge:

enablers [researchers, surgeons and technology licensees] can purchase technology but only after signing an agreement to deposit knowledge gained with the technology into the Knowledge Bank [a publicly accessible database], through what we call the knowledge feedback loop. Here again is the principle of giving something when getting something: the purchaser must create new knowledge for the public good to have access to the technology.

This is exactly how open source software works: anyone can take the code and build on it, but they must give back their additions to the community so that others can build upon them in exactly the same way. The results in the software field, where open source dominates the Internet, supercomputers and -- thanks to Android's underlying Linux foundation -- smartphones, speak for themselves. Whether Frangioni's experience of putting these ideas into practice with his FLARE Foundation can be generalized, remains to be seen. But it certainly seems an approach worth exploring.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

While most people have been taught to fear and loathe bacteria and other microscopic organisms (just watch some soap commercials), healthy people actually carry around more bacterial cells with them than their own human cells. It's estimated that there are ten times as many bacterial cells on a typical person than the number of cells that carry a person's own genetic code. About 100 trillion microscopic life forms usually live peacefully on (or in) our bodies, but the microbes that cause disease make us suspicious of all of them. In our battle to defeat the bad guys, though, we should be careful to limit the collateral damage. Here are just a few projects working on fighting "bad" bacteria without killing them all.

• Acne plagues millions of people, and its treatments aren't always effective -- so how about some anti-acne viruses to kill off the bacteria that cause these pimples? The key trick is killing off just those specific bacteria and not all the beneficial natural bacteria that live on everyone's skin. [url]
• A rare medical procedure, bacteriotherapy or fecal transplantation, attempts to restore a person's natural intestinal flora. Antibiotics can sometimes kill off too many microbes, making people sicker, and sometimes the solution is to re-create the right balance of microbes in a patient. [url]
• Synthetic biology could create bacteria that prevent cavities, solve lactose intolerance, provide vitamins, and do all sorts of beneficial things for us. Imagine eating a yogurt that would replace the bacteria in your mouth or digestive tract... (and then wait 28 days for the zombie apocalypse). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Several discoveries in biology could lead to treatments that reverse the effects of aging and prolong lifespans. There isn't quite a magic bullet, but it's not unreasonable to think that people could live longer and longer lives. The Methuselah Foundation has several monetary prizes for researchers in the field of life extension interventions. Here are just a few other interesting research studies on aging.

• Little worms (Caenorhabditis elegans) on the International Space Station are actually living longer in a micro-gravity environment than their earth-bound relatives. Researchers have identified several genes that contribute to this unexpected lengthening of longevity, but living on a space station isn't the fountain of youth. [url]
• The cost of sequencing the human genome has fallen dramatically from $3 billion for the first one... to a few thousand dollars. Having access to the information in our DNA could lead to lifespans of 150 years, but getting hit by a bus would still be a problem. [url]
• Certain kinds of exercise may extend your life more than others. Aerobic exercise is correlated with living a bit longer than non-aerobic exercise -- so expect a few more infomercials to start plugging exercise equipment with claims of helping you live longer. [url]
• Senescent cells can no longer divide, and they might bring down neighboring cells and create various symptoms of aging. Eliminating these senescent cells could lead to more age-resistant organs -- and people living longer (perhaps as undead zombies). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.