Recently, this topic has been in headline news due the legal battle between different groups (including ACLU) and Myriad Genetics (the patent holders for the DNA sequence containing BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations – mutations responsible for most hereditary breast and ovarian cancers).

This story has been reported by several news outlets. You can read more at USA Today, Wall Stree Journal (subscription required), and Reuters.

The concept of patenting a human gene violates the rules of obtaining a patent (i.e. a patent cannot be placed on something that exists in nature). However, Myriad Genetics’ patent is not on the gene itself, the patent is on identifying mutations that occur in that gene. Identification of this mutation is used to determine someone’s risk of developing hereditary subtypes of breast and/or ovarian cancers.

Groups suing Myriad Genetics claim the patent is hampering scientific research/innovation. It is not clear to me, at this time, why/how the patent would prevent advancing research in this area. I will have to dig deeper into this.

Nonetheless, the objective of the lawsuit is to invalidate the patent. If the patent on the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation is invalidated, a new start-up can develop a genetic test to detect this mutation. Since this new company did not invest any research money or time in identifying the mutations (which Myriad had to do), they can afford to price their genetic test very inexpensively compared to Myriad.

On the surface, an inexpensive test sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

The problem, however, is that Myriad will have to lower their prices too and, as a result, may be unable to recoup the money they invested in research, time, money, and resources. What would this mean to Myriad? Not clear, exactly, but it certainly would not be good news.

On a more global scale, what would this mean to other companies who are trying to develop other innovative genetic tests to determine an individual’s susceptibility for a specific disease? Will anyone invest in these companies if such investment may not be financially worthwhile in the long term?

Companies and investors are willing to take a risk by spending money, time, and research with the hope that some day their investments will pay off when the product goes to market.

What happens, then, if that incentive goes away?

I think the answer is simple: no one would invest in generating scientific discoveries or translating these discoveries to products that would benefit society.

And this is certainly not good news for advancements in the field of genetic testing.

So what is the solution?

It is critical for the courts who are handling this legal battle to be careful not to compromise the future of ventures that aim to develop genetic tests.

Obviously, there is no straightforward solution. We must identify a balance; we have to figure out how a company that conducts research and develops a product can profit, without hampering scientific innovation or progress in that area of research.

A cyber-seminar today (January 26th, 2010) from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm Eastern.

This cyber seminar is part of and kicks off a series of monthly events by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The goal of these events is to “engage researchers, cancer control, and public health practitioners in a discussion around the successes and challenges of translating research into practice.”

Obviously, we are very excited about the NCI’s efforts, because one of our goals here at Closing the Science Gap is to engage the academic research community in communicating effectively with the public and shaping science policy.

Read more information about this event.

More details about the event from the NCI:

Event presenters will provide practical suggestions on how scientists and other public health practitioners can better communicate data to the public, policy makers, and the press in typical real-world situations. Following the presentation, you will be invited to share your experiences during an interactive question and answer session.

Featured Presenters:

David Nelson, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, National Cancer Institute

Brad Hesse, Ph.D.
Chief, Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch, National Cancer Institute

To register, please follow this link: Register Now!

After you register, you will receive a confirmation email with the toll free number, passcode, and your unique PIN. For more information, please contact Margaret Farrell at margaret-farrell@nih.gov or Alissa Gallagher at alissa.gallagher@nih.gov.

We decided our first approach will be ART. We are pleased to announce the launch of Science Art Gallery .com.

The goals of Science Art Gallery is to blur the lines between art and science, such that our visitors (especially our non-scientist audience) would appreciate the visual as well as the conceptual beauty that science exhibits.

In addition, Science Art Gallery will feature science-inspired art for sale. A portion of every sale will be donated to fund research.

Taken together, Science Art Gallery is a self-sustaining mechanism to simultaneously close the science gap while raising funds to support cancer research.

The objective of this network is to help scientists who are interested in becoming involved in the clinical and translational research field to communicate with others to establish collaborations, share ideas, discuss career-related issues, and more. In addition to the community, CTSciNet members have access to a fantastic collection of articles and resources for clinical and translational research.

For more information, details, and to register, please visit Welcome to CTSciNet.

If you are a basic scientist, once you join the community, please be sure to join the Translational Research for PhD Scientists group.

Although the article points out that it would be difficult to obtain such a position fresh out of graduate school, it discusses the career path that one scientist took from his graduate school years to reach a project management position.

Even if you are currently a post-doc, you will learn what you need to do to start the path to moving into science project management.

After you read the article, we would like to hear your thoughts and comments, please share them with us.

Do you want to apply your science skills and experience to serve society?

For 36 years, the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships have provided a very unique opportunity for scientists to apply their knowledge and skills to federal policy, while learning first-hand to craft science policy in Congress and/or implement science policies in federal agencies.

Eligibility & Criteria
Successful applicants must hold a doctoral level degree (PhD, ScD, MD, DVM, etc) in social sciences, biological sciences, mathematics, or others. Applicants with an MS in Engineering and 3 years of post-degree professional experience also qualify. You must have completed your degree by December 15, 2009. View complete eligibility and criteria details.

The fellowship is a year-long opportunity, beginning September 1, 2010 and ending August 31, 2011. Fellows in most executive branch agencies have the opportunity to renew their fellowship for up to 12 additional months.

Stipend and Benefits
Stipend ranges between $73,000 to $95,000. Benefits include relocation allowance, health insurance reimbursements, and $4,000 for assignment-related travel, conferences, and/or training. In addition, fellows will be exposed to professional development opportunities, including seminars, workshops, career sessions, and networking events.

The AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships online application system is now open! The deadline is December 15, 2009. For full details, please visit the AAAS Policy Fellowship website.

To learn more details, RSVP for a webinar on October 2, 2009 at 12:00 pm ET. The webinar will cover more info about the fellowships application, selection, placement processes, and ask questions of former fellows.

There are many reasons why I wanted to point out this video. Here are a few:

1. it is an amazing illustration of how we can learn from nature.
2. importance of interdisciplinary approaches to scientific research
3. dynamic nature of deriving hypotheses and testing them
4. potential applications of scientific discovery to every day life.
5. tremendous enthusiasm and interest exhibited by the presenter about the topic.
6. the difference between presenting in a scientific meeting and to a general/public audience
7. it is pretty cool!

There are probably other reasons, but please enjoy this video…

The implications of this are far-reaching; it could change the way we testify in courts, interrogate suspects, and even in marketing!

It is quite fascinating, compelling, and downright scary! Please enjoy the video below (13 minutes 18 seconds).

In his recent comic strip (below), Jorge cleverly illustrated the misrepresentation of research findings in the mass media.

Please Enjoy:

For more comic strips by Jorge Cham, please visit his website: PhDComics.com.