The Patenting of Human Genome as an Issue of Women's Right to Health

In the 1990s the new science of gene technology was proving to give answers to many previously unanswered questions regarding hereditary diseases. One of these answers was the discovery of the genes BRCA1/2, mutations on which increase the likelihood for breast and ovarian cancer in women to up to 85%. There was a race among scientists to first identify the gene (originally it was thought to be just one) and sequence it, and in 1994 University of Utah filed a claim for the first patent in the name of Myriad Genetics, which has since held a practical monopoly on research into both genes and the testing for mutations on them. The patents cover not just specific mutations or methodologies of testing for these, but the entire genes, involving any use and research related to them. They were contested early on for a variety of reasons, relating both to the ethics of patenting human genome and to whether it is even reasonable to do so from a legal point of view. In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) with others filed a suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Myriad Genetics in order to have the patents declared invalid. They won the first case, which was since appealed by Myriad. The case was brought before the United States Supreme Court early in 2013. The gene patents were also contested in Europe for reasons related both to the effectiveness of the Myriad tests and to the ethics of patenting human genome. This text will focus on these ethics, specifically relating to treating parts of the human body as property, and how this in the BRCA case disproportionately affects women.

Society Against the State

In 1648 a bunch of guys sat down and decided that the best way to end wars of religion would be to create states. Sovereign states with sovereign rulers, and what happened inside those states was no one's business but the rulers'. People eventually stopped warring over religion, at least in Europe – they started warring “internationally” instead, as states became nations and saw in themselves something intrinsically unique to their respective nations that must be defended at all costs. Bloodshed ensued. Within the last 100 years the entire planet has been fitted into a neat pattern of nations, states, nation states, term it as you please, nice coloured spaces on the map, characterised by their internal affairs being nobody's business but their own. It is seen as a result of 'development', as something inevitable, as all societies must eventually progress towards having a State, and this is a Good Thing. While we're at last shedding some of the “my genocide is nobody's business but my own” thinking, and people are also beginning to get a grip of why “everybody must develop so as to be as civilised as us” may be deemed offensive, that a state should be inevitable is not so easily forgotten. Historians and other clever people sought out evidence in the sources of history to show why all peoples must eventually develop state structures in order to govern themselves, as not having a ruling power is equal to being Neanderthals, to paraphrase only slightly. Which brings me to what I want to present to you today. Is the State inevitable?