<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;cancer&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:38:28 PST</pubDate>
<title>Australian Court Says Genes Are Patentable</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/03274221993/australian-court-says-genes-are-patentable.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/03274221993/australian-court-says-genes-are-patentable.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the US Supreme Court will soon be weighing in on whether or not <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121130/14214321189/supreme-court-will-finally-say-if-genes-are-patentable.shtml">genes are patentable</a> in the Myriad Genetics case, we've also been following a similar case in Australia.  There, a bunch of cancer patients <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/1555459905.shtml">took Myriad to court</a>, arguing that the patent on BRCA1 is invalid (this same gene is part of the US case).  Unfortunately, the court has decided that <a href="http://www.watermark.com.au/watermarks-news/2013-february-15-2" target="_blank">genes are, in fact, patentable</a> if they've been isolated.  This is always the key point of contention with gene patent supporters.  They claim that it's the fact that they can separate the gene that makes their work patentable.  In some ways this is an odd sort of "sweat of the brow" argument for patents -- and here, the judge is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2013/65.html" target="_blank">buying the argument completely</a>.  He says that patenting genes in the human body would be a problem... but isolating them magically makes it a different story.
<blockquote><i>
There is no doubt that naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside the cells of the human body cannot be the subject of a valid patent. However, the disputed claims do not cover naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside such cells. The disputed claims extend only to naturally occurring DNA and RNA which have been extracted from cells obtained from the human body and purged of other biological materials with which they were associated. 
</i></blockquote>
This still seems ridiculous to me.  If others figure out how to get an isolated gene as well, why should that be subject to a patent?  Hopefully this is not a preview of the US Supreme Court's upcoming ruling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/03274221993/australian-court-says-genes-are-patentable.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/03274221993/australian-court-says-genes-are-patentable.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/03274221993/australian-court-says-genes-are-patentable.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sweat-of-the-brow?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130215/03274221993</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:39:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>Harvard Research Scientist: Sharing Discoveries More Efficient, More Honorable Than Patenting Them</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/07172121043/harvard-research-scientist-sharing-discoveries-more-efficient-more-honorable-than-patenting-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/07172121043/harvard-research-scientist-sharing-discoveries-more-efficient-more-honorable-than-patenting-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Meet <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/jay-bradner/309122/">Jay Bradner, Harvard research scientist</a>, who disovered a promising molecule that may represent a step forward in the fight against cancer and decided to put science before fortune, because <i>he&#39;s a human being</i>. Oh, and also because he suggests that going the patent route <b>would be less efficient and less honorable</b>.
<blockquote>
<i>Two years ago, after Jay Bradner made a remarkable breakthrough&mdash;the discovery of a molecule that, in mice, appeared to trick certain cancer cells into becoming normal cells&mdash;he did something unusual. Instead of huddling with lawyers to file for a patent on the molecule, Bradner simply gave his work away. Hoping to get the discovery into the hands of any scientist who could advance it, he published the structure of the compound (called JQ1) and mailed samples to labs around the world. The move, he says, felt like &ldquo;the more efficient way to do science&mdash;and maybe the more honorable way.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
More efficient. More honorable. It&#39;s a small example of the potential destruction for both prongs of the pro-patent argument. If it makes science more efficient to not patent, there goes promoting the progress. If it&#39;s more honorable, there goes the moral argument. And, unlike some pharma companies, I&#39;m not even going to make patents the key point here: Bradner&#39;s focus is on&nbsp;<i>helping people</i>. Do we get the same sense from the crowd patenting their drugs, their medical diagnostic techniques, and anything else they can get their hands on?<br />
<br />
Now, lest you write this off as some minor discovery that Bradner made, this molecule would likely have made him a great deal of money.
<blockquote>
<i>The monopoly on developing the molecule that Bradner walked away from would likely have been worth a fortune (last year, the median value for U.S.-based biotech companies was $370 million). Now four companies are building on his discovery&mdash;which delights Bradner, who this year released four new molecules. &ldquo;For years, drug discovery has been a dark art performed behind closed doors with the shades pulled,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I would be greatly satisfied if the example of this research contributed to a change in the culture of drug discovery.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
This puts Bradner firmly on my hero list. Here&#39;s hoping he succeeds in helping to change the biomedical culture.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/07172121043/harvard-research-scientist-sharing-discoveries-more-efficient-more-honorable-than-patenting-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/07172121043/harvard-research-scientist-sharing-discoveries-more-efficient-more-honorable-than-patenting-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/07172121043/harvard-research-scientist-sharing-discoveries-more-efficient-more-honorable-than-patenting-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>my-hero</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121114/07172121043</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/17494518083/dailydirt-id-like-to-teach-world-to-sing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/17494518083/dailydirt-id-like-to-teach-world-to-sing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola_Wars">Cola Wars</a> have been over for a long time. As usual in war, there are no real winners -- just a lot of wasted spending. Now that we're giving peace a chance, here are just a few lingering concerns over these dark-colored soft drinks. 

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/09/coke-pepsi-recipe-change-avoid-cancer-warning" href="http://bit.ly/z3eHfR">Coca-Cola and Pepsi are going to modify their recipes a little bit to reduce the amount of caramel coloring and 4-methylimidazole in their colas.</a> Otherwise, a California law would require a cancer warning label since the 4-methylimidazole in the coloring is a known carcinogen. [<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/09/coke-pepsi-recipe-change-avoid-cancer-warning">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.obscure.org/~bob/stuff/coke.html" href="http://bit.ly/z8hHUz">There was a fairly complex conspiracy theory behind the introduction of New Coke which suggested that Coca-Cola knew how badly the new formulation would taste to consumers, but that the company made it in order to replace sugar with HFCS.</a> Bonus points for definitively debunking this conspiracy theory... [<a href="http://www.obscure.org/~bob/stuff/coke.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://blog.fooducate.com/2009/06/30/11-quick-facts-about-phosphoric-acid-yes-that-chemical-in-coca-cola/" href="http://bit.ly/zwcMR2">If you've ever seen a demonstration of a can of cola dissolving teeth, you might be a bit freaked out by the phosphoric acid listed in the ingredients of many sodas.</a> But the dose makes the poison, and the concentration of phosphoric acid in soft drinks shouldn't worry anyone. [<a href="http://blog.fooducate.com/2009/06/30/11-quick-facts-about-phosphoric-acid-yes-that-chemical-in-coca-cola/">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/17494518083/dailydirt-id-like-to-teach-world-to-sing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/17494518083/dailydirt-id-like-to-teach-world-to-sing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/17494518083/dailydirt-id-like-to-teach-world-to-sing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120312/17494518083</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Putting Lives Before Patents: India Says Pricey Patented Cancer Drug Can Be Copied</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/02424818071/putting-lives-before-patents-india-says-pricey-patented-cancer-drug-can-be-copied.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/02424818071/putting-lives-before-patents-india-says-pricey-patented-cancer-drug-can-be-copied.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ India has an interesting relationship with pharmaceutical patents.  In 1970, India <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090530/1620345062.shtml">did away</a> with drug patents entirely, believing it would <i>help</i> create a domestic drug industry.  And it worked.  As we discussed in the past:
<blockquote><i>
2,237 licensed drug manufacturers in 1969-1970 grew to 16,000 by 1991-1993, production of drugs grew at an average rate of 14.4% per year from 1980 to 1993, India became a net exporter of pharmaceutical products, and the market share of foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) dropped from 80-90% to 40% (Fink 2005). In 1995, six of the top ten pharmaceutical firms in India were domestic, and employment in the sector had reached half a million people
</i></blockquote>
Now, remember how people say that without intellectual property, industries protected by those monopolies collapse?  Yeah, the opposite happened in India.  And yes, many were producing generic versions, but not all of them were.  Either way, despite all of this success, the international community, pressured by the big pharmaceutical firms, cracked down on such practices, and demanded that if anyone wanted to join the WTO -- an important organization for large countries to be a part of -- they had to recognize pharmaceutical patents as per the TRIPS agreement. India finally did so in 2005.
<br /><br />
However, one key point in TRIPS that developing countries such as India and Brazil have paid close attention to is the fact that they can <i>force</i> a compulsory license on a drug patent holder in the interest of public health. 
<br /><br />
For the first time since re-instating patents on pharmaceuticals, India <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1384" target="_blank">has granted just such a compulsory license</a>, covering a kidney and liver cancer drug marketed under the name Nexavar.  Indian generic drug company Natco requested a license, noting that Nexavar was in short supply in India and exceptionally expensive.  A typical dosage costs around $70,000 <i>per year</i> in India -- something Bayer says is necessary to recoup the drug's R&#038;D costs.  However, reports show that it cost less than $300 million to develop this drug (not to mention that the US government subsidized the process) and Bayer has already made billions selling the drug around the world.  In a <a href="http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/sorafenib_nexavar_compulsory_License_12032012.pdf" target="_blank">detailed ruling</a> (pdf and embedded below), India's Controller of Patents (nice title) granted Natco the right to make the same drug, requiring it to sell it at a significantly lower price than Bayer sells Nexavar for, and then pay back to Bayer a 6% royalty rate (which is actually at the high end of what the UN recommends).  Natco has to make the drug itself and can't name it Nexavar, make it look the same or even state that it's the same as Nexavar -- but it can make its own version of the drug and sell it, and the license lasts the life of the patent.  Bayer can and almost certainly will appeal, but this is going to be interesting to watch for a few reasons.
<br /><br />
The real question here is how the US will react to this.  The Obama administration has been trying to exempt <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110916/02325715976/obama-administration-trying-to-move-away-allowing-countries-to-ignore-patents-to-save-lives.shtml">drugs that treat non-communicable diseases</a> (such as cancer medication!) from such compulsory license rights.  In the meantime, the big (non-Indian) drug companies have been working hard to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100407/1902268925.shtml">lock up</a> the Indian drug market with patents. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration and the big drug companies have a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1804328453.shtml">cozy relationship</a> when it comes to dealing with patents in India.
<br /><br />
It's likely that you'll start to hear some rumblings from the US government about how this kind of ruling is a "problem" and how India isn't "respecting" international patent law. Expect to see diplomatic pressure placed on India to put limits on its compulsory licensing program, and potentially even noises about how India has to change its patent laws to "update" them and "harmonize" them with the world.  Also don't be surprised if stuff like this leads India to jump up the charts on next year's Special 301 reports from the USTR, which list "naughty" countries.  It's probably too late to make it into this year's list for this particular move.  Is it really any wonder that India is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/0354539639.shtml">so worried about ACTA</a>?  It knows that ACTA is entirely about ratcheting up enforcement, without any exceptions for things like this where something as important as saving lives comes into play.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/02424818071/putting-lives-before-patents-india-says-pricey-patented-cancer-drug-can-be-copied.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/02424818071/putting-lives-before-patents-india-says-pricey-patented-cancer-drug-can-be-copied.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/02424818071/putting-lives-before-patents-india-says-pricey-patented-cancer-drug-can-be-copied.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hello-compulsory-licenses</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120312/02424818071</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Cures For Everything..?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/18174415269/dailydirt-cures-everything.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/18174415269/dailydirt-cures-everything.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Medical technology has come a long way from leeches and barbers. But there are still a lot of horrible diseases without cures. Here are just a few projects working on some important cures.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/11/139536661/gene-therapy-breakthrough-trains-immune-system-to-fight-leukemia?" href="http://n.pr/o10q3d">There's a gene therapy approach to treating a form of leukemia that seems effective so far on three patients.</a> Interestingly, the researchers used a modified version of HIV to inject the gene therapy treatment.... [<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/11/139536661/gene-therapy-breakthrough-trains-immune-system-to-fight-leukemia?">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-08-drug-viral-infection.html" href="http://bit.ly/qDhu1i">Antiviral drugs seem pretty hard to find, but it looks like one has been found that's effective against at least 15 different viruses.</a> Including the common cold! DRACOs (Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizers) FTW! [<a href="http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-08-drug-viral-infection.html">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_aylward_how_we_ll_stop_polio.html" href="http://bit.ly/nYVPP0">Polio has a cure, and it's *almost* completely eradicated.</a> However, it still exists, and wiping it out isn't going to be easy. [<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_aylward_how_we_ll_stop_polio.html">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To find more interesting stuff on health-related topics, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:51" href="http://bit.ly/fTZg7F">check out what's currently in the StumbleUpon archives.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:51">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/18174415269/dailydirt-cures-everything.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/18174415269/dailydirt-cures-everything.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110726/18174415269/dailydirt-cures-everything.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110726/18174415269</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:09:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Would People Stop Using Mobile Phones If More Evidence Shows Them To Be Carcinogenic?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110602/03463214518/would-people-stop-using-mobile-phones-if-more-evidence-shows-them-to-be-carcinogenic.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110602/03463214518/would-people-stop-using-mobile-phones-if-more-evidence-shows-them-to-be-carcinogenic.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks have been talking about the recent WHO report which says there's now enough evidence to indicate that mobile phones <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/26776" target="_blank">are at least somewhat carcinogenic</a>.  Of course, for years there have been ongoing dueling studies on this topic, with plenty supporting this view, and plenty saying there was no such evidence.  Frankly, I have no idea which side to believe, but am wondering:  <i>will this news actually cause anyone to stop using their mobile phones</i>?  I'm sure there will be a few people here or there who will go that far.  For others, it may just result in them not keeping the phone so close to them all the time, or maybe even turning it off at times.  But I'm curious to hear from anyone out there who actually plans to radically shift their behavior due to this report.  Are you out there?  Can you explain your thinking?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110602/03463214518/would-people-stop-using-mobile-phones-if-more-evidence-shows-them-to-be-carcinogenic.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110602/03463214518/would-people-stop-using-mobile-phones-if-more-evidence-shows-them-to-be-carcinogenic.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110602/03463214518/would-people-stop-using-mobile-phones-if-more-evidence-shows-them-to-be-carcinogenic.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-wondering</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110602/03463214518</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:13:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Finally, A Definitive Answer On Whether Cell Phones Cause Cancer -- In 20 Or 30 Years</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1040189142.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1040189142.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, there's been <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml">conflicting research</a> on the health risks posed by mobile phones. For every study that found a link between the radiation from phones and cancer, there was another that didn't. Part of the problem is that the health issues that could be caused by phones can take years to emerge, and since mobile phones are relatively new -- and have changed significantly over the past 10 or 15 years -- so definitive research is a long and difficult task. But now, some researchers in Europe are embarking on a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8637466.stm">large-scale, 20- to 30-year study</a> to examine just how phones affect people's health. They're looking at cancer, but also other issues commonly tied to phones, such as brain diseases, headaches, tinnitus, depression and sleep disorders, and will also be examining radiation emitted by other devices, like baby monitors and cordless phones. It will be great to have some more definitive answers as to exactly what risks we're subjecting ourselves to by putting mobile phones up against our heads, so be sure to check back in a few decades.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1040189142.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1040189142.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1040189142.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>long-wait</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100422/1040189142</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:49:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Judge Lets Gene Patent Lawsuit Move Forward</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/2114366770.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/2114366770.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few months back, we noted that (finally!) someone was challenging the ridiculous and dangerous practice of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0051434857.shtml">patenting genes</a>.  The company being sued, Myriad Genetics, tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming that the parties (the ACLU and some cancer patients) have no standing, but the judge <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/genes/" target="_blank">was not convinced and is allowing the case to move forward</a>, noting that there is a legitimate First Amendment issue to consider here.  While just a preliminary step, this is definitely a step in the right direction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/2114366770.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/2114366770.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/2114366770.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-speech</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091102/2114366770</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 08:52:18 PDT</pubDate>
<title>ACLU, Cancer Patients Sue Over Patenting Of Genes</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0051434857.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0051434857.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, we've been among those who have questioned how the hell anyone (let alone the US Patent Office) can justify the concept of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070213/112851.shtml">patenting genes</a>.  Yet, the Patent Office has continued to issue such patents, even as they have been shown to cause <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/0300123006.shtml">significant problems</a> in diagnosing and treating certain illnesses.  Finally, however, it appears that the concept of patenting genes <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13patent.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_new">is about to get tested in court</a>.  The ACLU has organized a group of cancer patients who have had treatments and medical analysis limited due to gene patents held by the company Myriad Genetics, and brought the issue to court.  This is a big deal... and while the case and the resulting appeals will certainly take many years, this is going to be a case well worth watching.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0051434857.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0051434857.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090513/0051434857.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>big-news</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090513/0051434857</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Latest Cell Phone-Cancer News: Your Eyes Are Safe</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090115/1225173425.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090115/1225173425.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The debate about the cancer-causing effects of cell phones has been rumbling on for years and years, with <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml">contradicting</a> studies coming out every so often. The real answer to the question of whether phones give people cancer, at this point, seems to be "nobody really knows yet", so any news one way or the other should be taken with a grain of salt (or two). In any case, the latest study to emerge says mobile phones <a href="http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090113/tc_nm/us_cancer_cellphones" target="_new">don't cause eye cancer</a>. Of course, this research contradicts the conclusion of an earlier, smaller study conducted by the same German researchers. So even though they're calling phones safe -- for your eyes, anyway -- the contradiction seems par for the course.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090115/1225173425.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090115/1225173425.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090115/1225173425.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>today-you're-fine</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090115/1225173425</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>No Targeted Ads For AIDS &#038; Cancer Patients; But Drug Addicts &#038; Dead People Are Fair Game</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/025448822.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/025448822.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we discussed how behavioral targeting of advertising risked <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080311/121305499.shtml">seriously creeping people out</a>, if it reached that "uncanny valley" of being a little too targeted, but not yet useful.  It seems that behavioral targeted advertising firms are trying to deal with this by working together to come up with a set of standards covering what topics are taboo when it comes to targeted advertising.  Cancer and AIDS patients, rejoice. <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/ad-industry-bans-targeting-people-with-cancer-ads-to-dead-people-allowed/" target="_new">Advertisers have decided not to target you</a>.  However, if you're old, addicted to drugs, religious, a convicted felon or dead, you're fair game.  Dead?  Well, the ad group says it meant the "death" category to be for targeting ads at relatives making funeral plans ("Death in the family? Get a casket for 20% off!").  How thoughtful of those advertising groups.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/025448822.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/025448822.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/025448822.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-gotta-have-some-standards</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080411/025448822</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Apr 2008 03:04:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Brain Surgeon Announces That Mobile Phones Cause Cancer... But Without Any New Research</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Every so often, somewhere, a research report comes out claiming that mobile phones <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060331/0923215.shtml">cause cancer</a> only to be followed a few months later by the latest research report claiming that mobile phones <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061205/170444.shtml">don't cause cancer</a>.  It goes <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20060120/0838212.shtml">back and forth</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20041014/114540.shtml">back and forth</a>.  So, we take it with a grain of salt every time some new announcement comes out one way or the other, and that's doubly true with the latest report, as a brain surgeon <a href="http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2213238/mobile-phones-dangerous" target="_new">has declared that mobile phones are "more dangerous than smoking."</a>  Of course, there's just one problem: the guy hasn't done any new research.  He merely read some of the old research that claims mobile phones cause cancer and is repeating the claims found in them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/002119723.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that's-convincing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080402/002119723</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:11:41 PDT</pubDate>
<title>VeriChip Kept Quiet On Cancer Link... Yet Were Pretty Vocal On Fake FDA Approvals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070909/232237.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070909/232237.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Associated Press has a story that got plenty of attention this weekend, pointing out that a series of studies which found that VeriChip's RFID products <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHIPPING_AMERICA_II?SITE=CADIU&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">induced malignant tumors</a> in animals.  This information was not made public as the company continued to hype the devices for implant into humans.  The article notes that the devices were approved by the FDA... but leaves out a rather revealing bit of history.  VeriChip and its parent company Applied Digital have done an amazing job generating publicity for the company, but often in very questionable ways.  It might help to go through some of the history.
<br /><br />
Back in 2002, prior to getting FDA approval, there was the too good to be true story of an entire family that just couldn't wait to get themselves <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020206/0947251.shtml">chipped</a>.  The whole thing sounded sketchy from the beginning, and many suspected that the entire thing was merely created by VeriChip to get publicity.  Soon afterwards, VeriChip announced that the FDA had said that implantable RFID chips <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020404/1413226.shtml">were not regulated</a> medical devices, and therefore could be used for chipping humans.  Note that the announcement came from VeriChip.  That's because the FDA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021008/0926257.shtml">did not say</a> what VeriChip claimed it said.  VeriChip had asked the FDA to declare the chips unregulated devices, and the FDA simply requested more information.  VeriChip, in turn, took that request for more info and claimed that the devices were unregulated, leading to a rather unhappy FDA.
<br /><br />
A few months later, the FDA finally gave <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021023/0219212.shtml">conditional</a> support for the device, saying that VeriChip could be used, as long as it was not advertised as a "medical device."  VeriChip, of course, once again put out a press barrage claiming that it had FDA approval.  And, not surprisingly, it kept advertising the chips as medical devices, leading the FDA to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021119/1114201.shtml">warn</a> the company to knock it off.  Then, the company went south of the border, and started focusing on convincing people in Mexico to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030718/1058236.shtml">get chipped</a> for the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031010/0936257.shtml">safety of the children</a>.  See?  Down in Mexico, you don't have to worry about the pesky American FDA.  Two years later, we were a bit surprised that the FDA finally did <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041013/1143240.shtml">approve</a> the device for medical purposes -- but would you really want a company like that sticking stuff in your body?
<br /><br />
Oh yeah, if that wasn't enough, the company had borrowed a bunch of money from IBM, and when IBM tried to collect, Applied Digital <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030310/087251.shtml">sued</a>.  Yes, they sued the company who gave them money when they were unable to pay back the loan.  This latest article on the cancer link plays up the fact that former FDA head Tommy Thompson later joined the board of VeriChip, but leaves out his own <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051208/0240218.shtml">reluctance</a> to have a VeriChip RFID installed in his own body.  Anyone else feel safe having this company stick RFID chips under your skin?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070909/232237.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070909/232237.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070909/232237.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070909/232237</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>