TED: Should you be able to patent a human gene? | Tania Simoncelli

The video discusses the journey of challenging gene patents in the US, led by a science advisor at the ACLU and a lawyer, Chris Hansen. They aimed to address the issue of gene patents, which restricted scientific freedom and patient rights. The case focused on Myriad Genetics, which held patents on BRCA genes, affecting breast and ovarian cancer testing. Despite initial skepticism, the case reached the Supreme Court, resulting in a unanimous decision that human genes cannot be patented. This landmark ruling ended a 25-year practice, promoting innovation and patient access to genetic testing.

What was the initial reaction of Chris Hansen when he learned about gene patents?

• He was excited to learn more.

• He was shocked and wanted to take legal action.

• He already knew about them.

• He was indifferent.

What was the main issue with gene patents according to the narrator?

• They were too expensive.

• They restricted access to genetic testing and research.

• They were not recognized internationally.

• They were only applicable to certain genes.

Why did the narrator and Chris Hansen choose to focus on Myriad Genetics?

• Myriad was based in New York.

• Myriad had a monopoly on BRCA testing.

• Myriad was a small company.

• Myriad was not enforcing its patents.

What was a major challenge in preparing the case against Myriad Genetics?

• Raising funds for the lawsuit.

• Finding enough plaintiffs.

• Understanding the science behind gene patents.

• Getting media attention.

What unexpected event occurred during the appeal process?

• The case was dismissed.

• Myriad Genetics dropped their patents.

• The case was moved to a different court.

• The US government switched sides.

What metaphor did the legal team use to explain isolated DNA?

• A diamond in the rough.

• Gold extracted from a mountain.

• A hidden treasure.

• A pearl in an oyster.

What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding gene patents?

• They upheld the patents.

• They ruled that naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented.

• They ruled in favor of Myriad Genetics.

• They decided not to hear the case.

What was the immediate impact of the Supreme Court's decision?

• No changes occurred.

• Multiple labs began offering BRCA testing.

• The biotech industry collapsed.

• Myriad Genetics increased their prices.

How did the narrator describe the Supreme Court's ruling?

• A minor change in patent law.

• A significant barrier to innovation.

• A complete victory for their side.

• A setback for scientific freedom.

What was the broader significance of the Supreme Court's decision?

• It ended the practice of patenting human genes in the US.

• It only affected Myriad Genetics.

• It was a temporary measure.

• It had no real impact on the biotech industry.