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 role did the speaker have at the ACLU?

What were some of the issues the speaker was investigating at the intersection of science and civil liberties?

What was Chris Hansen's reaction when the speaker mentioned gene patents?

What was the main argument against gene patents presented in the text?

What was the significance of the case against Myriad Genetics?

What were the consequences of Myriad's patents on BRCA testing?

What metaphor was used to explain the isolation of DNA?

What was the reaction of the US government during the appeal process?

How did the Supreme Court rule regarding the patentability of human genes?

What was the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on gene patents?