Skip to content

Can (or Should) We Patent Nature?

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Myriad Genetics Inc. did not invent anything when it isolated two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. 
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week, for free.

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Myriad Genetics Inc. did not invent anything when it isolated two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which can be used to indicate if a woman is at risk of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

“To be sure, [Myriad] found an important and useful gene,” Thomas wrote, “but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

Therefore, Myriad was not eligible for patents. Mother Nature seems to have a better patent claim. 

What do you think?

Can (or Should) We Patent Nature?

Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week, for free.
Related
A bearded man wearing glasses and a plaid shirt speaks with a microphone clipped to his collar in front of a purple background with white dots.
The Well
How Rainn Wilson discovered sacredness
The hospital where Rainn Wilson’s wife and son nearly died became his own personal holy site. There, he discovered that the sacred can exist in places we least expect it. During his talk at A Night of Awe and Wonder, he explained how the awe we feel in moments of courage and love is moral beauty — and following it might be the start of our spiritual revolution.
▸
13 min
—
with
Rainn Wilson
Up Next