What happened to Killponger's CRH gene that helped him over overcome his environmental traumas? What happens to the fight or flight response in a normal person in the face of environment trauma??

Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Should the physicians at UCLA have told Mr. Moore that his cells and its products were being commercially developed?

Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Do you think that donors or patients who provide cells and/or tissues should retain ownership of their body parts or should share in any financial benefits that might derive from their use in research or commercial applications?

Two genes associated with breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, were discovered in 1994 and 1995, respectively, and shortly thereafter, were patented by Myriad Genetics, a company based in Utah. Under the patents, testing for mutations in these genes could only be performed by Myriad, at costs from 300 to 3,000. Myriad also patented the process of analyzing the results of such tests, preventing anyone who obtains the sequence of their BRCA genes by other means (which itself would probably be patent infringement) from interpreting the information. The idea that genes can be patented has been a contentious issue from the beginning. Patents are not granted for products of nature, meaning that genes inside the body are not patentable, but biotech companies successfully argued that by removing a gene from the human body, purifying it, and then obtaining its DNA sequence, they created something not found in nature, and which is therefore a patentable invention. The U.S. Patent Office found the argument persuasive, but opponents argue that genes are parts of our bodies and can be identified but not invented. Biotech companies argue that without the protection offered by patents, they would have no incentive for research and development of diagnostic tests. In Europe, patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 were revoked in 2004 because they did not meet the standards for a patent. After more than a decade of legal disputes, the patents were partially restored in 2008 on a very restricted basis. In the United States, a lawsuit, focused on the patents for the BRCA genes, was filed in May 2009. The suit challenges the basic idea that genes are patentable. In November 2009, the judge ruled that the lawsuit can proceed, and the case is moving forward. In March 2010, a federal court invalidated Myriad Genetics patent on these genes. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts decision and ruled that gene sequences isolated from cells are not a product of nature and are therefore patentable. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered the appeals court to reconsider the case. The Federal Appeals Court did not change its decision, and the case once again, went to the U.S. Supreme Court. A unanimous decision in June 2013 invalidated Myriads patents on the basis that isolating a gene from nature does not make it patentable. This is a landmark decision on gene patenting with widespread ramifications for the biotechnoloogy industry. Will this decision reduce the incentives for companies to invest in new diagnostic tests that would be used by cancer victims or those with serious genetic disorders?