University of Utah law professor and adjunct professor in human genetics Jorge Contreras, who has written a book on the Myriad Genetics Supreme Court case, told AAP FactCheck the claims in the Instagram post are “patently absurd”.

Prof Contreras said the post was correct that the Supreme Court ruled human DNA could not be patented because it was a product of nature. However, the same ruling did not determine that the human genome could be patented if it was modified, or that those who received a vaccine which modified their genome could be patented, he added.

“Just because a patented substance is injected into a person, that does not, under even the wildest interpretation of patent law, mean that the person somehow becomes ‘patented’,” Prof Contreras said via email. “At the most basic level, the US Patent Act expressly prohibits patenting human organisms.”

By Megan Krench on July 9, 2013

In a unanimous decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring genes are not patentable. But, said the Court, cDNA, a man-made copy of the genetic messenger in cells, is patentable. As a geneticist, I have my own opinions about this ruling. But the potential outcomes are important enough that all members of the public, not just biologists, should be equipped with the knowledge to evaluate it. The ruling may significantly affect patients’ access to genetic testing, and it sets an important precedent for future developments in the biotechnology sector.

Dr Dre said you can’t copyright no beats

I have a strong preference for a manual but the wife likes the automatic when she goes to town.

Ha ha.

Yeah, driving around Potlandia got tiresome for my wife in the standard transmission car. I hated it when I came back from work for the winter and had to use my truck there too. More stop lights in a couple of blocks than on the 50 mile drive to the big town for groceries or the doctor.