Should you be able to patent a human gene? | Tania Simoncelli

譯者: 易帆 余 審譯者: Coco Shen

It was an afternoon in the fall of 2005.

2005年秋天的一個下午，

I was working at the ACLU as the organization's science advisor.

我在 ACLU（美國公民自由聯盟） 擔任該組織的科學顧問，

I really, really loved my job,

我真的很熱愛我的工作，

but I was having one of those days

但那些日子的某一天，

where I was feeling just a little bit discouraged.

我感覺有一點提不起勁，

So I wandered down the hallway to my colleague Chris Hansen's office.

我意興闌珊地經過走廊來到 我同事 Chris Hansen 的辦公室。

Chris had been at the ACLU for more than 30 years,

Chris Hansen 在 ACLU 工作三十幾年了，

so he had deep institutional knowledge and insights.

他對制度有相當深刻的認識和洞察。

I explained to Chris that I was feeling a little bit stuck.

我向 Chris 解釋， 我最近感覺到有點束手無策。

I had been investigating a number of issues

我當時在調查

at the intersection of science and civil liberties -- super interesting.

處在科學和公民自由十字路口的 一系列問題--這超級有意思。

But I wanted the ACLU to engage these issues in a much bigger way,

但我希望 ACLU 能夠用 更廣泛的方式來處理這些問題，

in a way that could really make a difference.

一個真正能做出改變的方式。

So Chris cut right to the chase, and he says,

所以，Chris直接切入重點，他說，

"Well, of all the issues you've been looking at, what are the top five?"

“ 那好，就你目前觀察的問題中， 排前五名的是那些？”

"Well, there's genetic discrimination,

“嗯，這裡面有遺傳歧視、

and reproductive technologies,

生殖技術

and biobanking, and ...

及生物樣本庫，還有...

oh, there's this really cool issue,

哦，還有一個很酷的爭議，

functional MRI and using it for lie detection, and ...

功能性 MRI（核磁共振）， 以及用它來測謊，還有……

oh, and of course, there's gene patents."

哦，當然，還有" 基因專利 "

"Gene patents?"

“ 基因專利？”

"Yes, you know, patents on human genes."

“ 是的，你知道的，人類基因專利 ”

"No!

“ 不可能！

You're telling me that the US government

你是在跟我說，美國政府

has been issuing patents on part of the human body?

已經對人體的部位授予專利？

That can't be right."

這不對吧！ ”

I went back to my office and sent Chris three articles.

我回到我的辦公室， 給 Chris 發了三篇文章。

And 20 minutes later, he came bursting in my office.

20分鐘後，他衝進來我的辦公室。

"Oh my god! You're right! Who can we sue?"

“ 天哪！你是對的！我們可以告誰？ ”

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now Chris is a really brilliant lawyer,

Chris 是一名傑出的律師，

but he knew almost nothing about patent law

但是他幾乎完全不懂專利法，

and certainly nothing about genetics.

而且肯定不懂遺傳學。

I knew something about genetics, but I wasn't even a lawyer,

我懂一點遺傳學， 但我連律師都不是，

let alone a patent lawyer.

更別說是個專利律師了。

So clearly we had a lot to learn before we could file a lawsuit.

所以很顯然的，在打官司之前， 我們需要學很多東西。

首先，我們需要先搞懂

First, we needed to understand exactly what was patented

when someone patented a gene.

當有人為基因申請專利時， 究竟是什麼被授予了專利。

Gene patents typically contain dozens of claims,

基因專利基本上內含了很多權利，

but the most controversial of these are to so-called "isolated DNA" --

但是最有爭議的是 所謂的“ 離體DNA（亦稱：單離DNA） ”--

namely, a piece of DNA that has been removed from a cell.

顧名思義，就是從細胞中 分離出來的 DNA 片段。

基因專利的支持者聲稱，

Gene patent proponents say,

"See? We didn't patent the gene in your body,

" 你看？ 我們不是對你 身體中的基因申請專利，

we patented an isolated gene."

我們是對離體基因申請專利。 ”

And that's true,

這是事實，

but the problem is that any use of the gene requires that it be isolated.

但問題是，任何基因上的運用， 都需要把基因分離出來。

And the patents weren't just to a particular gene that they isolated,

故獲取專利的部分， 並非他們分離出來的特定基因，

but on every possible version of that gene.

而是那個基因的每個可能版本。

So what does that mean?

所以這意味著什麼？

That means that you can't give your gene to your doctor

這意味著， 你不能把你的基因給你的醫生，

and ask him or her to look at it,

請他或她幫你檢查，

say, to see if it has any mutations,

像是，檢查是否有變異，

without permission of the patent holder.

在沒有專利持有者的同意下。

It also means that the patent holder has the right to stop anyone

也就是說，專利持有者 有權利阻止任何人

from using that gene in research or clinical testing.

使用該基因從事研究或臨床試驗。

Allowing patent holders,

允許專利持有者

often private companies,

通常是私人企業， 他們閉鎖住開發人類基因組的行為

to lock up stretches of the human genome was harming patients.

會傷害到患者的權利。

Consider Abigail,

想一下，Abigail，

a 10-year-old with long QT syndrome,

一位10歲患有長QT綜合症的小女生，

a serious heart condition that, if left untreated,

長QT綜合症是一種 嚴重的心臟疾病，如果不治療，

can result in sudden death.

可能會引發猝死。

The company that obtained a patent on two genes associated with this condition

有個公司握有兩個 與這種疾病相關基因的專利，

developed a test to diagnose the syndrome.

他們開發了一種 診斷此病症的化驗方式。

But then they went bankrupt and they never offered it.

但之後他們倒閉了， 而他們從未提供此項服務。

So another lab tried to offer the test,

於是另一個實驗室 嘗試提供這項化驗，

but the company that held the patents threatened to sue the lab

但是持有這項專利的公司 告發那個實驗室

for patent infringement.

專利侵權。

So as a result,

所以，結果是，

for 2 years, no test was available.

兩年內，沒有人提供化驗服務。

During that time,

這段期間，

Abigail died of undiagnosed long QT.

Abigail 因未診斷出 長 QT 綜合症而去世。

Gene patents clearly were a problem and were harming patients.

基因專利顯然是個問題， 並且損害患者的權利。

But was there a way we could challenge them?

但是我們有沒有方法 可以挑戰他們呢？

Turns out that the Supreme Court

其實，最高法院

has made clear through a long line of cases,

透過一系列的判例， 已經清楚地表明，

that certain things are not patent eligible.

有些東西是不能申請專利的。

You can't patent products of nature --

你不能對自然界中 的物質申請專利--

the air, the water, minerals, elements of the periodic table.

像是，空氣、水、礦物、 元素週期表裡的物質。

And you can't patent laws of nature --

你也不能對自然法則申請專利--

the law of gravity, E = mc2.

像是萬有引力公式 E=mc2。

These things are just too fundamental and must remain free to all

這些東西太基本了， 必須對所有人保持免費，

and reserved exclusively to none.

且不能被任何人獨自佔有。

It seemed to us that DNA,

DNA 對我們而言，

the most fundamental structure of life,

像是生命最本質的結構，

that codes for the production of all of our proteins,

它對我們所有的蛋白質產物編碼，

is both a product of nature and a law of nature,

既是自然界的物質， 也是自然的法則，

regardless of whether it's in our bodies

無論它是在我們的體內，

or sitting in the bottom of a test tube.

或是沉在一根試管底部。

As we delved into this issue,

我們不斷深入這個問題，

we traveled all over the country to speak with many different experts --

我們飛到全國各地， 和許多不同的專家談話--

scientists, medical professionals, lawyers, patent lawyers.

科學家、醫療專家、律師、專利律師。

Most of them agreed that we were right as a matter of policy,

絕大多數都同意， 在政策層面我們是正確的，

and, at least in theory, as a matter of law.

並且在法律層面， 至少在理論上是正確的。

All of them thought

但他們全都認為

our chances of winning a gene-patent challenge

我們挑戰基因專利贏的機率

were about zero.

幾乎是零。

Why is that?

為什麼呢？

Well, the patent office had been issuing these patents

好吧，因為專利局核發這些專利

for more than 20 years.

已經超過 20 年了，

There were literally thousands of patents on human genes.

的確已經有數千個人類基因專利。

The patent bar was deeply entrenched in the status quo,

專利的測驗評量已行之有年，

the biotech industry had grown up around this practice,

生物科技產業在這個 機制下蓬勃發展，

and legislation to ban gene patents had been introduced

立法禁止基因專利的提案

year after year in Congress,

每年都會在國會被提出來審議，

and had gone absolutely nowhere.

但已經不知道被丟到哪裡去了。

So the bottom line:

所以底線是：

法院就是沒有意願 去推翻這些專利。

courts just weren't going to be willing to overturn these patents.

Now, neither Chris nor I were the type to shy away from a challenge,

現在，無論是 Chris 或我 都不是那種臨陣脫逃的人，

and hearing, "Being right just isn't enough,"

而且聽到“正確又能何哉”，

seemed all the more reason to take on this fight.

更激起我們奮戰的理由。

So we set out to build our case.

所以，我們打算建立 我們的訴訟方式，

Now, patent cases tend to be: Company A sues Company B

現在，專利訴訟法案通常是： A公司告B公司，

over some really narrow, obscure technical issue.

總是在一些非常狹隘、 晦澀的技術問題上打轉，

We weren't really interested in that kind of case,

我們對這類的問題真的不感興趣，

and we thought this case was much bigger than that.

而且我們認為這個案件 要比那些重大得多。

This was about scientific freedom, medical progress,

這個案件關乎 科學自由、醫療進步、

the rights of patients.

病患權利。

So we decided we were going to develop a case

所以，所以我們決定我們要做的，

that was not like your typical patent case --

和你通常看到的專利官司不同--

more like a civil rights case.

它更像是公民權利的官司。

We set out to identify a gene-patent holder

我們打算去找一位 強硬推行它的專利的

that was vigorously enforcing its patents

這樣一個基因專利持有者，

and then to organize a broad coalition of plaintiffs and experts

然後組織一個原告和專家的大聯盟，

that could tell the court

去告訴法院

about all the ways that these patents were harming patients and innovation.

這些專利損害病人 並阻礙創新的種種劣跡。

We found the prime candidate to sue in Myriad Genetics,

我們發現 Myriad Genetics 可以作為我們要告發的主要目標，

a company that's based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

這是一家總部設在 猶他州鹽湖城的公司，

Myriad held patents on two genes,

Myriad 這家公司持有兩個基因專利，

the BRCA1 and the BRCA2 genes.

分別是 BRCA1 和 BRCA2 基因，

Women with certain mutations along these genes

攜帶有這兩個基因某些變種的女性，

are considered to be at a significantly increased risk

罹患乳腺癌和卵巢癌

of developing breast and ovarian cancer.

的風險會顯著升高。

Myriad had used its patents to maintain

Myriad 利用這項專利來維持

a complete monopoly on BRCA testing in the United States.

在美國境內 BRCA 檢測市場 的完全壟斷地位。

It had forced multiple labs that were offering BRCA testing to stop.

它迫使多個提供 BRCA 測試 的實驗室停止這項服務。

It charged a lot of money for its test --

它收取相當昂貴的檢測費用--

over 3,000 dollars.

超過3,000美金。

It had stopped sharing its clinical data

它已經停止與國際科學界

with the international scientific community.

共享它的臨床數據。

And perhaps worst of all,

以及可能最糟糕的，

for a period of several years,

曾經有幾年，

Myriad refused to update its test to include additional mutations

Myriad 公司拒絕在他們的檢測中更新

that had been identified by a team of researchers in France.

已被法國一個研究團隊 鑑別出來的其他變種數據，

It has been estimated that during that period,

據估計，在此期間，

for several years,

有數年，

as many as 12 percent of women undergoing testing

將近12％的婦女進行的測試

received the wrong answer --

得到了錯誤檢測結果--

a negative test result that should have been positive.

原本陽性反應卻被檢測成 陰性反應（假陰性）。

This is Kathleen Maxian.

這位是 Kathleen Maxian，

Kathleen's sister Eileen developed breast cancer at age 40

Kathleen 的姊姊在40歲時得到乳腺癌，

她是找 Myriad 檢測的。

and she was tested by Myriad.

The test was negative.

測試結果是呈現陰性，

The family was relieved.

家人如釋重負，

That meant that Eileen's cancer most likely didn't run in the family,

這說明艾琳的癌症 很可能不會在家族中重現。

and that other members of her family didn't need to be tested.

其他的家族成員 也不需要再接受檢驗。

But two years later,

但，二年後，

Kathleen was diagnosed with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

Kathleen 被診斷出卵巢癌末期，

It turned out that Kathleen's sister was among the 12 percent

原來卡瑟琳的姐姐就是那12%

who received a false-negative test result.

得到了假陰性結果的病人之一。

Had Eileen received the proper result,

Eileen 如果得到正確的結果，

Kathleen would have then been tested,

Kathleen 就會去做化驗，

and her ovarian cancer could have been prevented.

那她的卵巢癌就可以被提早預防，

Once we settled on Myriad,

我們確定目標為 Myriad 後，

we then had to form a coalition of plaintiffs and experts

我們需要組建一個

that could illuminate these problems.

能夠陳述這些問題的原告和專家團。

We ended up with 20 highly committed plaintiffs:

我們找到了 20 位非常積極的原告：

genetic counselors,

遺傳學顧問、

geneticists who had received cease and desist letters,

曾經收到停止和終止信函的遺傳學家、

advocacy organizations,

理念相同的組織、

four major scientific organizations that collectively represented

四個主要科學組織，集中起來代表了

more than 150,000 scientists and medical professionals,

超過 15 萬名科學工作者和醫療專家，

and individual women who either couldn't afford Myriad's test,

及幾位無力負擔 Myriad 檢測的各別女性，

or who wanted to obtain a second opinion but could not,

或者因為此專利的關係，

想要獲得其它醫學意見，但無法取得的人。

as a result of the patents.

One of the major challenges we had in preparing the case

我們準備訴訟時其中一個最大挑戰是

was figuring out how best to communicate the science.

要找出如何用最佳的方式來闡述科學。

So in order to argue that what Myriad did was not an invention,

所以為了辯明 Myriad 所為並不是發明，

and that isolated BRCA genes were products of nature,

分離出來的 BRCA 基因是自然的產物，

我們得舉例解釋這些基本概念，像是：

we had to explain a couple of basic concepts, like:

What's a gene? What's DNA?

基因是什麼？DNA 是什麼？

How is DNA isolated, and why isn't that an invention?

DNA要如何被分離？ 為什這個東西不是發明？

我們和原告和專家團花了很多時間，

We spent hours and hours with our plaintiffs and experts,

trying to come up with ways of explaining these concepts

嘗試地想出一些簡單又精確的方法

simply yet accurately.

來解釋這些概念。

And we ended up relying heavily on the use of metaphors,

最後我們相當倚賴用比喻的方式，

like gold.

像是黃金，

So isolating DNA --

所以分離 DNA--

it's like extracting gold from a mountain

像是從山裡挖出黃金，

or taking it out of a stream bed.

或是從河床裡掏出黃金。

You might be able to patent the process for mining the gold,

你或許可以為採集黃金 的流程申請專利，

but you can't patent the gold itself.

但你不能把黃金本身申請專利。

It might've taken a lot of hard work and effort

從山裡面開採黃金也許

to dig the gold out of the mountain;

需要花很大的功夫及心力；

you still can't patent it, it's still gold.

但你仍舊不能把黃金申請專利， 黃金還是黃金。

And the gold, once it's extracted,

而黃金，一旦被萃取出來，

can clearly be used for all sorts of things

顯然可以被用於各種

that it couldn't be used for when it was in the mountain;

它埋在山中時不能實現的用途；

you can make jewelry out of it for example --

例如，你可以把它製成珠寶飾品--

still can't patent the gold, it's still gold.

但仍然不能把黃金申請專利， 它仍然是黃金。

So now it's 2009, and we're ready to file our case.

2009年，我們準備遞交我們的案件，

We filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York,

我們遞交到紐約南區的聯邦法院，

and the case was randomly assigned to Judge Robert Sweet.

案件被隨機指派到 一位 Robert Sweet 法官，

In March 2010, Judge Sweet issued his opinion --

2010年3月Sweet法官發表他的看法--

152頁--

152 pages --

and a complete victory for our side.

對我們這邊完全有利，

In reading the opinion,

在閱讀他的看法時，

we could not get over how eloquently he described the science in the case.

我們搞不懂，他在描述科學時 怎麼那麼頭頭是道，

I mean, our brief -- it was pretty good,

我的意思是，我們的聲明--已經相當不錯，

but not this good.

但沒他的好，

How did he develop such a deep understanding of this issue

他是如何在這樣的短時間內

建立出對這此議題這麼深厚的認知？

in such a short time?

We just could not comprehend how this had happened.

我們真的無法理解這是怎麼發生的。

So it turned out,

原來，

Judge Sweet's clerk working for him at the time,

當時 Sweet 法官底下的書記員

不僅是位律師--

was not just a lawyer --

he was a scientist.

也是位科學家，

He was not just a scientist --

且不僅是科學家，

he had a PhD in molecular biology.

他還有分子生物學的博士學位，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What an incredible stroke of luck!

真是太幸運了！

Myriad 隨後上訴到

Myriad then appealed

to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院。

And here things got really interesting.

然後事情就變得非常有意思了。

First, in a pivotal moment of this case,

首先，本案中的一個關鍵時刻，

the US government switched sides.

美國政府倒戈了，

So in the district court the government submitted a brief on Myriad's side.

在地方法院上，政府遞交了 一份簡述支持 Myriad。

But now in direct opposition to its own patent office,

但是這回美國政府 直接反對它自己的專利局，

the US government files a brief that states that is has

美國政府發了一個簡短的聲明，

reconsidered this issue in light of the district court's opinion,

他們基於地區法庭的判決， 已重新考慮了問題，

and has concluded that isolated DNA is not patent eligible.

並總結出" 離體DNA " 不具備專利適格性，

This was a really big deal,

這簡直是大逆轉，

totally unexpected.

完全意想不到。

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

聯邦巡迴上訴法院

hears all patent cases,

聽審過所有的專利官司，

and it has a reputation for being very, very pro-patent.

它傾向專利的看法非常出名。

So even with this remarkable development,

所以即使有這個卓越的發展，

we expected to lose.

我們仍預測應該會敗訴。

And we did.

而我們真的敗訴了，

Sort of.

在某種程度上啦．．．

Ends up split decision, 2 to 1.

最後，非一致性判定，兩票對一票

But the two judges who ruled against us,

但那兩個做出不利於我們判定的法官，

did so for completely different reasons.

卻持完全不同的理由，

The first one, Judge Lourie,

第一位 Lourie 法官，

made up his own novel, biological theory --

編造了他自己的新生物理論--

totally wrong.

完全是胡說八道。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

He decided Myriad had created a new chemical --

他判定 Myriad 創造了一個新的化學成份--

made absolutely no sense.

完全不合理。

Myriad didn't even argue this, so it came out of the blue.

Myriad 本身甚至不曾如此聲稱， 完全意想不到。

The other, Judge Moore,

另一位法官，Moore，

said she basically agreed with us that isolated DNA is a product of nature.

她說，她完全同意 離體 DNA 屬於自然界的產物。

But she's like, "I don't want to shake up the biotech industry."

但她說，" 我並不想要撼動生物科技界 "

The third, Judge Bryson,

第三位 Bryson 法官，

agreed with us.

認同我們。

So now we sought review by the Supreme Court.

所以，我們上訴到最高法院，

And when you petition the Supreme Court,

當你上訴到最高法院時，

you have to present a question that you want the Court to answer.

你需要提出一個 你希望法院回應的問題。

Usually these questions take the form of a super-long paragraph,

通常，這些問題都是 落落長的問句，

like a whole page long with lots and lots of clauses,

像是一整頁很多很多子句、

"wherein this" and "therefore that."

“是否就在”、“因此那樣”的問題，

We submitted perhaps the shortest question presented ever.

我們提交了可能是 有史以來最短的問題。

Four words:

四個詞：

Are human genes patentable? （人類基因可以專利化嗎？）

Are human genes patentable?

Now when Chris first asked me what I thought of these words,

當 Chris 第一次問我對這幾個字的想法時，

I said, "Well, I don't know.

我說，" 我不知道 ，

I think you have to say, 'Is isolated DNA patentable?'"

我認為你應該要說， ’離體DNA是可以專利化的嗎？’　"

"Nope.

"不，

I want the justices to have the very same reaction that I had

我希望大法官的反應能和我在七年前

when you brought this issue to me seven years ago."

你問我這個問題時一模一樣。 ”

Well, I certainly couldn't argue with that.

好吧，我當然不能反駁。

The Supreme Court only hears about one percent

最高法院只受理大約 1%

of the cases that it receives,

它所收到的案件，

and it agreed to hear ours.

而法院同意要聽審我們的。

The day of the oral argument arrives, and it was really, really exciting --

口頭辯論的那天到來， 這真的是相當刺激--

long line of people outside,

外面排了很多人，

people had been standing in line since 2:30 in the morning

有人凌晨兩點半就來排隊，

to try to get into the courthouse.

就為了要擠進法庭。

Two breast cancer organizations,

兩個乳腺癌組織，

Breast Cancer Action and FORCE,

乳腺癌行動組織和 FORCE，

had organized a demonstration on the courthouse steps.

在法庭台階上組織了抗議行動，

Chris and I sat quietly in the hallway,

Chris 和我靜靜地坐在走廊上，

moments before he was to walk in and argue

在他步入法庭

the most important case of his career.

並為他職業生涯中最重要的案件辯護之前，

I was clearly more nervous than he was.

我很明顯地比他還緊張，

But any remaining panic subsided as I walked into the courtroom

但所以有的恐懼就在我 步入法庭時消失殆盡，

and looked around at a sea of friendly faces:

環顧四週都是孰悉的面孔：

我們的各別女性客戶，

our individual women clients

who had shared their deeply personal stories,

在庭上訴說著切身的故事，

the geneticists who had taken huge chunks of time out of their busy careers

還有在百忙之中抽出大量時間

to dedicate themselves to this fight

奉獻在這場戰役的遺傳學家，

and representatives from a diverse array

還有來自許多不同領域的代表：

of medical, patient advocacy,

醫療、患者救助、

environmental and religious organizations,

環保和宗教組織，

who had submitted friend of the court briefs in the case.

本案中向法院遞交陳情書的朋友。

Also in the room were three leaders of the Human Genome Project,

同在法庭內的還有 三位人類基因組計劃的領導者，

including the co-discoverer of DNA himself,

包括DNA的共同發現者本人，

James Watson,

James Watson，

who had submitted a brief to the court,

他也遞交了陳情書，

where he referred to gene patenting as "lunacy."

他指出把基因專利是"瘋子行為”。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The diversity of the communities represented in this room

法庭中出席群體的廣度，

and the contributions each had made to make this day a reality

以及他們每一位為實現 這一天而做出的貢獻

spoke volumes to what was at stake.

讓我們的聲勢壯大了許多。

The argument itself was riveting.

辯論主體非常的精彩。

Chris argued brilliantly.

Chris 辯論地相當出色，

But for me,

但對我而言，

the most thrilling aspect was watching the Supreme Court justices grapple

最激烈的戰況是，看著最高法院的大法官

with isolated DNA,

為離體DNA激烈爭論，

through a series of colorful analogies and feisty exchanges,

透過一系列精彩的比喻 及精力充沛的交叉辯論，

very much the same way as our legal team had done

就和我們法律團隊過去七年

for the past seven years.

所做過的演練如出一轍。

Justice Kagan likened isolating DNA

Kagan 法官把離體DNA比喻成

to extracting a medicinal plant from the Amazon.

從亞馬遜森林中提取醫療植物。

Justice Roberts distinguished it from carving a baseball bat from a tree.

Roberts 法官把它比喻作 把樹木雕成棒球棒。

And in one of my absolutely favorite moments,

而絕對是我最喜歡的一個瞬間是，

Justice Sotomayor proclaimed isolated DNA to be "just nature sitting there."

Sotomayor法官宣布 離體DNA "就是自然存在那裡"

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

我們那天離開法院時 感覺相當有信心，

We felt pretty confident leaving the courtroom that day,

but I could never have anticipated the outcome:

但令我意想不到的結局竟是：

nine to zero.

九比零。

"A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature,

"一段自然形成的DNA片段 是自然界的產物，

and not patent-eligible merely because it has been isolated.

並不能因為它被分離出體外 就可以授予專利。

And furthermore,

另外，

Myriad did not create anything."

Myriad 並沒有創造任何東西。 ”

Within 24 hours of the decision,

判決後 24 小時內，

five labs had announced

五個實驗室宣布

that they would begin to offer testing for the BRCA genes.

他們將開始提供 BRCA 基因的檢驗服務。

Some of them promised to offer the tests at a lower price than Myriad's.

他們有些承諾檢驗的價格 會比 Myriad 的還低。

Some promised to provide a more comprehensive test

有些承諾將提供更全面的檢測，

than the one Myriad was offering.

比 Myriad 提供的更多。

But of course the decision goes far beyond Myriad.

不過這個判決遠遠不止影響了 Myriad，

It ends a 25-year practice of allowing patents on human genes

它還終結了美國境內 25 年來

in the United States.

允許授予人類基因專利的行為。

It clears a significant barrier to biomedical discovery and innovation.

它為生物醫療的發現和創新 掃除了一個重要的障礙。

And it helps to ensure that patients like Abigail, Kathleen and Eileen

它也有助於保證像 Abigail,、 Kathleen 和 Eileen 這樣的患者

have access to the tests that they need.

能夠獲得她們需要的檢測。

A few weeks after the court issued its decision,

最高法院宣判判決幾週後，

I received a small package in the mail.

我在信箱收到了一個郵件小包，

It was from Bob Cook-Deegan,

是一位杜克大學教授

a professor at Duke University

Bob Cook-Deegan 寄來的，

and one the very first people Chris and I went to visit

他是我和 Chris 開始考慮 是否要接下此案時

when we started to consider whether to bring this case.

第一個拜訪的人，

I opened it up to find a small stuffed animal.

我把它打開，發現裡面 是一個小小的毛絨動物。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We took a big risk in taking this case.

我們冒了很大的風險接下這個案件，

Part of what gave us the courage to take that risk

而給予我們勇氣面對風險的部分原因是

was knowing that we were doing the right thing.

我們知道我們在做對的事情。

The process took nearly eight years from the start to finish,

從開始到結束，整個過程將近八年，

with many twists and turns along the way.

這一路走來相當的曲折。

A little luck certainly helped,

當然有一點運氣的幫忙，

but it was the communities that we bridged,

但，是我們搭建的社群、

the alliances that we created,

是我們創造的聯盟，

that made pigs fly.

讓不可能變成可能。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）