評論
打印
Science and technology
科學技術
Biotechnology patents
生物技術專利
Natural justice
自然正義
America's Supreme Court is to rule on the patenting of genes
美國最高法院將對基因專利做出裁決
THE nine justices on America's Supreme Court must apply their minds to the thorniest of legal questions.
美國最高法院的九位法官全力專注于處理這最棘手的法律問題。
On April 15th they were presented with a particularly testing puzzler: should the law allow people to patent human genes?
4月15日，法官們遇到一個相當棘手的案件：法律是否允許取得人類基因的專利權。
The case is the culmination of a battle that began in 2009.
2009年專利之爭使此案件白熱化。
It pits America's Association for Molecular Pathology and various other interested parties—represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union—against Myriad Genetics, a biotechnology firm that holds patents on two human genes, called BRCA1 and BRCA2.
案件起源于美國分子病理學學會與其他利益相關方—由來自美國民權同盟的律師代表—聯名起訴麥利亞德基因公司，該生物技術公司持有名為BRCA1 和 BRCA2的兩個人類乳腺癌基因專利。
That makes Myriad the sole producer of tests to detect mutations in those genes.
專利的授權使麥利亞德公司成為檢測這兩個基因突變的基因測序獨家供應商。
Such mutations often increase a woman's risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer.
這些基因突變常會增大女性患乳腺癌及卵巢癌的風險。
It is an emotionally charged question.
這是一個帶著感性色彩的案件。
Patent offices around the world have been granting patents on genes, human and otherwise, for decades, but time has done little to soften opposition to the idea.
雖然世界各地的專利局數十年來一直授予人類基因或者其他基因的專利，但也未能減緩外界對這一做法的反對。
Laymen are often baffled when they find out that it is possible to patent parts of the human genome.
部分人類基因可注冊專利常使得非專業人員感到困惑。
Anti-patenting campaigners argue that the idea of claiming a patent over the shared genetic heritage of the human race is absurd, immoral or both.
反對專利注冊的人認為，對共享的人類遺傳基因申請專利的做法是荒謬的或不道德的，或兩者皆有。
But the court is unlikely to base its ruling on such airy ethical principles.
但法院是不大可能依據這些不切實際的道德準則來對此案件進行裁決的。
The legal debate revolves not around the two genes' humanness, but their naturalness—for the judges are being asked to rule whether Myriad's genes count as a product of nature.
法律爭辯的焦點不在于基因的人類性，而是在于它們的自然性—因為法官理應裁決麥利亞德公司的基因是否算是自然產物。
If they do, then under American law they cannot be patented.
如果是的話，那在美國法律規定下，這些基因就不能被注冊專利。
At first glance, it may seem odd to argue that a gene is anything other than a product of the natural world.
乍看之下，這可能看上去很奇怪，爭論基因是否只是自然界產物。
But Myriad's patents do not cover the genes as they occur in living cells.
但麥利亞德公司的專利并不包括活細胞中存在的基因。
Rather, they cover isolated forms of the genes, which have been identified, snipped from the genome and chemically modified to make them analysable in a laboratory.
恰恰相反，專利涉及的是這些基因的分離基因，已被測定的分離基因是從基因組中剪切出來經化學方法修飾后可用于實驗室實驗分析的一類基因。
Myriad argues that these alterations, and the new use to which the resulting gene is put as part of a diagnostic test, make their product sufficiently innovative to be worthy of the law's protection.
麥利亞德公司聲稱這些改造基因，以及合成基因用于診斷測試的這類新應用，使他們公司產品足夠創新，值得受到法律的保護。
The plaintiffs say this reasoning is spurious: the chemical changes are trivial, and the resulting bit of DNA useful only because it is identical in every meaningful way to the version that occurs in vivo.
原告們則認為這種邏輯帶有欺騙性：化學改造不重要，DNA合成之所以有用只是因為與源基因在生物體中作用模式完全相同。
Doctors, patients and biotechnology companies are interested in the information content of genes, the argument runs, not the incidental details of their chemical composition.
他們還認為，醫生、患者以及生物技術公司感興趣的是基因的信息內容，而不是化學合成基因所附帶的信息。
For a while, the court found itself bogged down in analogies with the patent-eligibility of chocolate-chip cookies and baseball bats.
法庭暫時陷入了像巧克力餅干和棒球棒專利資格似的困境中。
There are other criticisms of Myriad.
還有另外一些對麥利亞德公司的批評。
One is that its patents are too broad.
有人認為麥利亞德公司的專利涵蓋范圍過大。
The firm's tests look for variations in BRCA genes.
該公司的基因測序是為發現BRCA基因的突變體。
Rather than patenting every conceivable variant, the company claims jurisdiction over isolated DNA sequences, 15 base pairs long, that match short parts of the genes.
他們不是對每一有可能得到的基因突變體持有專利權，而是對一段分離到的基因序列持有專利權，這段基因序列含有15個堿基對，可與BRCA基因短鏈配對。
An analysis by Jeffrey Rosenfeld and Christopher Mason, of the Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics and Cornell University respectively, published in Genome Medicine, found that 689 other human genes contain 15-base-pair strings found in BRCA1, suggesting Myriad's patents technically cover those unrelated genes, too.
分別來自賽克勒比較基因組學研究所和康奈爾大學的杰弗里·羅森菲爾德以及克里斯托弗·梅森，在《Genome Medicine》雜志發表的文章中指出，研究發現其他689個人類基因都含有BRCA1基因中的這段15個堿基對的DNA鏈，這表明麥利亞德公司的專利從學術角度來講也涵蓋這些不相關的基因。
The economics of genomics
基因組的經濟學
The arguments ranged beyond the arcana of human genetics and American patent law.
討論范圍超出了人類遺傳學的深奧知識和美國專利法之外。
The judges were keen to explore the impact of a hypothetical anti-Myriad ruling on the country's thriving biotechnology industry, which, according to one estimate, was worth 92 billion in 2011.
法官們熱衷于探討的是，一個假設的反對麥利亞德公司專利的裁決會對國家日益繁榮的生物技術行業產生何種影響，據統計，生物技術行業2011年產值為920億美元。
Several questioned Christopher Hansen, the plaintiffs' lawyer, on what incentive firms would have to identify interesting genes if there were no possibility of winning a patent on them.
有人質疑原告律師克里斯多夫·漢森，如果不能獲得專利權，那么公司又有什么動力去發掘有價值的基因。
Developing such tests is not cheap.
基因測序技術的實驗花費并不便宜。
According to Mark Capone, Myriad's president, the firm spent around 500m before it had a product it could bring to market.
據麥利亞德公司董事長馬克·卡波尼所說，公司在一個生物產品可投入市場之前要花費大概5億美元。
Others argue that such patents hold back biotechnology, an industry that is changing fast.
另有人認為，這樣的專利阻礙了日新月異的生物技術行業的發展。
Donald Verrilli, America's solicitor general, who represents the government's view in the case, pointed out that competitors need the patent-holder's permission to isolate the genes to see if they can develop a better test, or even to examine them for any other effects they may have.
對此案件，政府發言人美國副檢察長唐納德﹒維里利指出，競爭者有了專利持有人的許可去分離基因，才能知道他們自己是否可以研發出更好的測序方法，或者甚至可以研究發現基因其他潛在的價值。
Some observers think an anti-Myriad ruling would have little practical effect.
一些觀察員認為反對麥利亞德公司專利權的裁決將不會產生太大的經濟影響。
The firm's patents expire in 2015, and technology has moved on.
該公司的專利權有效期截止到2015年，而到那時，生物技術早已有極大的進步。
The cost of genetic sequencing is falling fast, and it may soon be possible for people to have their entire genomes sequenced for less than the roughly 4,000 Myriad charges for its tests.
基因測序成本會大大降低，很快人們也許就可以花費少于4000美元就能對自己全部的基因測序。
Any genes of interest could thus be examined for worrisome mutations, probably without infringing any patents.
從此不用侵犯任何專利權，就可檢測基因突變。
And Mr Hansen conceded that much work in modern biotech concerns recombinant DNA, which involves cutting and pasting DNA from different sources to make synthetic sequences not found in nature, something that the plaintiffs agree should be covered by patent law.
而且漢森律師不得不承認，現代生物技術的基因重組，大部分是對不同外源DNA進行剪切、粘貼后形成自然界中不存在的DNA合成序列，這并不違犯專利法。
Whatever conclusion the court comes to, the judges seemed keen to avoid an overly broad ruling.
不管法院裁決結果如何，法官們似乎傾向避免做出過于清晰的裁決。
That may be a legally sensible approach to a knotty question combining genetics, economics and ethics.
這也許是對此涉及遺傳學、經濟學和倫理學的棘手案件比較合法合理的解決方式。
But, like all good compromises, it risks leaving no one satisfied.
但是，與所有好的折中一樣，這樣會導致原告被告雙方均對裁決不滿。
Ideally, America's Congress would set out exactly what parts of the human genome should be patentable.
理想的做法是美國國會應該確切地規定人類基因組的哪些基因可以申請專利。
There is not much chance of that actually happening, though.
不過，這也不太可能會發生。
