ACLU Attorney Sandra Park presented at SHARE on the legal protections afforded to people who have a known genetic mutation, such as BRCA 1 or 2, or who are planning to get genetic testing. Some employers may discriminate, but under the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, legal protections are in place. Learn about them.
The information in this video is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. If you'd like to view the complete webinar, go to www.sharecancersupport.org/park
Call Girls Raipur Just Call 9630942363 Top Class Call Girl Service Available
Legal Issues Raised by Genetic Testing: Genetic Discrimination and Gene Patents
1. Legal Issues Raised by Genetic
Testing: Genetic Discrimination
and Gene Patents
Sandra Park,
Senior Staff Attorney,
ACLU Women’s Rights Project,
spark@aclu.org
October 2013
3. GENETIC INFORMATION
NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF
2008
● Federal law that prohibits genetic
discrimination in group and individual health
insurance and in employment.
● Does not apply to life insurance, disability
insurance, long-term care, or other forms of
insurance.
4. What is Genetic Information?
• Family medical history
• Genetic test results of one’s self and family
members (specifically BRCA1, BRCA2)
• Request for or receipt of genetic services
• Participation in research studies
Does not include current health conditions,
symptoms, manifested diseases
5. GINA & HEALTH INSURANCE
•
•
•
Law prohibits restricting enrollment or
increasing premiums based on genetic
information.
Insurer cannot request or require genetic
testing with certain exceptions.
Insurer cannot collect genetic information for
underwriting or enrollment, but can do so
once enrolled.
6. GINA & HEALTH INSURANCE
(CONT.)
•
•
•
Genetic information cannot be considered a
pre-existing condition without a diagnosis.
GINA does not prohibit discrimination based
on the “manifestation of a disease.”
However, the health care reform law (ACA)
prohibits the use of preexisting conditions to
deny enrollment (currently in effect for people
under 19 years old; will go into effect for
others in 2014).
7. GINA & EMPLOYMENT
Employers cannot:
●classify or discriminate against employees
based on genetic information;
●cannot share genetic information about an
employee;
●cannot retaliate against an employee for
asserting her GINA rights; and
●cannot acquire genetic information with certain
exceptions.
8. GINA & Employment - EEOC
●
●
●
Can enforce rights using the same legal
procedures available under Title VII (antidiscrimination law).
Applies to state, local and private employers
with more than 15 employees.
First step is to file a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
9. Example: BRCA
In April 2010, one of the first complaints under GINA
was brought by a CT woman who alleged that her
employer fired her after she disclosed her BRCA+
test results.
She filed complaints with the EEOC and the CT
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
10. Example: Fabricut
●
●
●
Temp employee offered permanent job. Sent
to medical examiner for physical and drug
test.
Physical asked about family history of heart
disease, cancer, etc. Found she had carpal
tunnel syndrome. Offer revoked.
5/2013: EEOC settlement of lawsuit
○
○
$50,000
Notices, policy changes, training
11. EEOC Statistics
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Complaints
filed
201
245
280
Resolutions
56
211
319
Settlements
3
18
30
Withdrawals
with benefits
2
7
7
Administrativ 11
e closures
32
55
No
reasonable
cause
38
143
187
Successful
conciliations
1
4
27
Unsuccessfu 1
l
conciliations
7
13
12. NEW YORK
NY Civil Rights Law (s. 79-l):
•Cannot perform a genetic test on a biological sample
without written informed consent, with certain
exceptions.
•Governs use of samples for research purposes
NY Insurance Law (s. 2615)
•No insurer can request or require genetic testing
from an insurance applicant without informed
consent.
•All genetic test records are deemed confidential and
cannot be disclosed without written authorization.
14. Patenting Human Genes
1987
Patent Office: patents on “isolated” DNA
1990
BRCA1 link to chromosome 17 (Mary-Claire King)
1994-5
BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequenced
1997-8
BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents obtained
1998
Cease-and-desist letters
16. Effects of Human Gene Patenting
●Diagnostic Testing
●Patient Care
●Data Sharing
●Research
●New technologies
17. Lawsuit challenging BRCA1/2 patents
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Organizations
Association For Molecular Pathology
American College Of Medical Genetics
American Society For Clinical Pathology
College Of American Pathologists
United States Patent
and Trademark Office
(PTO)
Researchers/Clinicians
Haig Kazazian, MD (UPenn)
Arupa Ganguly, PhD (UPenn)
Wendy Chung, MD, PhD (Columbia)
Harry Ostrer, MD (Montefiore)
David Ledbetter, PhD (Geisinger)
Stephen Warren, PhD (Emory)
Genetic Counselors
Ellen Matloff, MS (Yale)
Elsa Reich, MS (NYU)
Breast Cancer Action
Our Bodies Ourselves
Myriad Genetics
Patients
Lisbeth Ceriani
Runi Limary
Genae Girard
Vicky Thomason
Kathleen Raker
Patrice Fortune
University of Utah
Research Foundation
(UURF) directors
18. Experts and Advocates
Opposing Gene Patents
● American Medical Association,
American Society for Human
Genetics, other med./sci. groups
● Canavan Foundation, Claire
Altman Heine Foundation, March
of Dimes, FORCE, Ovarian Cancer
National Alliance, other patient
groups
● National Women’s Health
Network and women’s health
groups
● AARP
● Laboratories including
InVitae, GeneDx
● James Watson (codiscovered DNA’s double
helix)
● Eric Lander, MIT/ Harvard
geneticist
● Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel
Laureate economist
● Southern Baptist Convention
19. Timeline
●May 2009 Suit filed in NY federal court by ACLU and
PubPat.
● Patent Act: genes are “products of nature” and therefore
unpatentable
● U.S. Constitution: practice amounts to patenting basic scientific
knowledge
●Mar. 2010 Judge Robert Sweet found challenged patent
claims invalid in 150-pg opinion.
●Oct. 2010 Amicus brief filed by U.S. government.
●July 2011 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(2-1) reversed Judge Sweet’s ruling on the
isolated DNA claims.
20. Timeline (cont.)
●Mar. 2012 Supreme Court ordered re-consideration in
light of Mayo v. Prometheus.
●Aug. 2012 Second Federal Circuit decision
(again 2-1)
●Nov. 2012 Supreme Court granted petition.
Question presented:
“Are human genes patentable?”
24. Supreme Court Decision
● Unanimous, written by Justice Thomas
● Isolated genomic DNA is not patenteligible under Section 101 of the Patent
Act; it is a product of nature.
“Myriad did not create anything. To
be sure, it found an important and
useful gene, but separating that
gene from its surrounding genetic
material is not an act of invention.”
● cDNA is not a product of nature.
June 13, 2013
Photo source:
http://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas
25. Scalia Concurrence
“I am unable to affirm those
[fine] details [of molecular
biology] on my own
knowledge or even my own
belief.”
26. Reactions
Patent Office Preliminary Guidance:
“Myriad significantly changes the Office’s examination
policy regarding nucleic-acid related technology . . .
Examiners should now reject product claims drawn
solely to naturally occurring nucleic acids or fragments
thereof, whether isolated or not”
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad_20130613
.pdf
“a victory for all those eagerly
awaiting more individualized,
gene-based approaches to
medical care”
-- NIH director Francis Collins
27. More Reactions
• Same day: 5 laboratories announced they
would immediately begin offering BRCA
genetic testing.
• U. of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry
Genetics / Gene by Gene (D. Utah)
• Counsyl v. Myriad Genetics Inc. (N.D. Cal.)
• Quest Diagnostics v. Myriad Genetics Inc. (C.D.
Cal.)