Nature Biotechnology replies:

We were not making the case that gene patenting itself was a problem, although it is clear that some DNA patents with overly broad claims are cause for concern. We disagree with the contention that “there is no evidence that Myriad Genetics...or any other gene patent holder has inhibited basic biological research by threatening patent infringement litigation.” There are cases where exclusive licensing practices (a particular problem for methods patents) or aggressive license enforcement has stymied research, as is detailed elsewhere in this issue1. The problems also reach beyond basic research: a survey of 132 clinical laboratory heads in the United States found that 53% had “decided not to develop or perform a test/service for clinical or research purposes because of a patent”2. Indeed, one of the plaintiffs in the Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office case is a patient who would like to have their BRCA1 test from Myriad independently verified by another laboratory, but cannot because of Myriad's aggressive stance that prevents other laboratories performing the test. It might be good business for Myriad, but is it reasonable to enforce intellectual property in such a manner that it is so difficult for a patient to confirm a DNA test in an independent laboratory?

The claim that new technology takes the place of 'obsolescent' technology because “patents expire” is also moot in relation to DNA patents. A point we were trying to make in the editorial is that the fields of molecular diagnostics and sequencing are moving so quickly that they are becoming obsolete along much shorter timelines than patent terms of 20 years. Although it was not trivial to sequence a human gene 20 years ago, it is certainly becoming routine today.