Can your body's genes be patented by a company?

[razz]

Not sure where to put this thread so move if needed please.

If a doctor takes a sample from your body for a test and it is read, have you lost control of your genetic makeup?
At least that is how I am understanding the arguments at the Supreme Court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/04/15/gene-patent-case-us-supreme-court.html
Quotes:
Researcher Chris Mason with the New York Genome Center told CBC the patents already given for thousands of genes means you don't own your own genetic material.

'Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop scientific advances under the promise of strong patent protection.'—Myriad Genetics CEO Peter Meldrum

"It means as soon as you extract DNA from your body or your doctor does, it's no longer your property, nor your doctor's. It's the property of a company," he said...

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years, but opponents of Myriad Genetics Inc.'s patents on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer say patent protection should not be given to something that can be found inside the human body...


Allowing companies like Myriad to patent human genes or parts of human genes will slow down or cripple lifesaving medical research like in the battle against breast cancer, he said.

But companies have billions of dollars of investment and years of research on the line, with Myriad arguing that without the ability to recoup their investment through the profits that patents bring, breakthrough scientific discoveries needed to combat all kind of medical maladies wouldn't happen.

[Rosemary]

I do not understand why this is even an argument. The way I see it, those companies have only figured out how to detect that gene and then use it for diagnostics. The gene has always been there. They can patent a method of locating responsible genes, they can patent their technique for diagnosing based on that gene, but it does not make sense to me to allow genes themselves to be patented.

[Lainey]

I do not understand why this is even an argument. The way I see it, those companies have only figured out how to detect that gene and then use it for diagnostics. The gene has always been there. They can patent a method of locating responsible genes, they can patent their technique for diagnosing based on that gene, but it does not make sense to me to allow genes themselves to be patented.

I agree Rosemary, but the horse is out of the barn legally speaking. Depending on how the Sup. Ct. rules, it could roll back a lot of other decisions.