I've posted a brief article (On the gain of genes and gene function) over at Wonderful Life on two recent papers that reveal something of the rate and nature of gene duplication and diversification within the species of Drosophila.  This is by way of response to recent review article written by the prominent supporter of Intelligent Design creationism, Michael Behe.

Looks as though the practise of patenting genes may be at an end (at least in the USA) Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent - NYTimes.com.  It's always seemed odd to me that patents of natural objects suc as genes were allowed in the first place - this case concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics on the use of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property.

The case was brought jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation.  This case has been interesting - my memory of events is that Myriad knew where the genes were, but that it was the public human genome sequencing projects which provided the raw data that enabled Myriad to determine the gene sequences.The implication of this ruling, if it's upheld, may be interesting.  I suppose smaller biotech companies with principal IP assets in the form of gene patents might find themselves in trouble.  The NYT article continues:

Judge Sweet, however, ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” because they involved a “law of nature.” He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”The case could have far-reaching implications. About 20 percent of human genes have been patented, and multibillion-dollar industries have been built atop the intellectual property rights that the patents grant.

I notice from a quick Google search that John Sulston released a statement back in 2009 supporting the ACLU case (BRCA - Statement of Support: Sir John Sulston):

I applaud the efforts of the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation in challenging the patenting of human genes, and in particular the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2. A patent on a gene specifically bestows the right to prevent others from using that gene. Rather than fostering innovation – one of the primary goals of the patent system – gene patents can have a chilling impact on research, obstruct the development of new genetic tests, and interfere with medical care.Genes are naturally occurring things, not inventions, and the heritage of humanity. Like a mountain or a river, the human genome is a natural phenomenon that existed, if not before us, then at least before we became aware of it.

Sulston's statement also illustrates the chilling effect of gene patents on research and development, specifically citing the chain of events which led to Myriad's patent application. Of course there are differing views on this: the NYT report quotes various individuals from the patent/legal/business side of the affair who clearly believe that medical research progress will be dented if individuals or companies are prevented from profiting financially from gene discovery (rather than inventing some application based upon gene discovery).This decision is to be welcomed, although the NYT reports that the decision is likely to be appealed.

The latest issue of Genetics to flop onto my desk has a rather nice article by Sydney Brenner entitled "In the Beginning Was the Worm...". This brief article (in the regularly excellent Perspectives section) presents an account of the origins of Caenorhabditis elegans research, by the beast's main man, research which ultimately earned him Nobel Prize fame. I won't go into a blow-by-blow account of Brenner's career (that's probably quite easy to track down on the interweb), but suffice it to say that after forging a seriously important career in prokaryotic genetics and molecular biology, he was instrumental in establishing an entirely novel experimental system.  For a Drosophilist such as myself, C. elegans seems particularly simple - it has a defined number of cells per animal (dependent on sex), and the cell lineage tuns out to be pretty much invariant in the wild type.  In origin, it's a soil dwelling nematode. For my part, the big influence was the genome mapping and sequencing technologies that were developed for C.elegans, and which we applied to Drosophila.  The picture below shows an adult (and, dare I say it, elegant) C. elegans.