trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Corporations hold patents on human DNA sequences

the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
1 source for · 3 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that Corporations hold patents on human DNA sequences?

No. Although human gene sequences were historically patented, landmark US Supreme Court rulings such as Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013) determined that naturally occurring DNA sequences are not patent-eligible.

Verdict: REFUTED · 1 source for, 3 against · Last checked

The analysis

While past practice saw thousands of gene patents granted, the landmark 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics decisively ended the patenting of isolated, naturally occurring human DNA sequences, making the claim false under current law.

Evidence for · 1
Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?
2014
Notes that thousands of patents have historically been awarded claiming human gene sequences and their uses.
Get citation
S, C., AL, M., & IB, V. d. V. (2014). Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4445

Evidence against · 3
Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology.
2013
Notes that the Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics invalidated patents on isolated genes, establishing that naturally occurring DNA sequences are not patent-eligible.
Get citation
K, O., A, B., C, S., JF, M., KE, N., & R, S. (2013). Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.49.7388

See more details
More against · 2
Patenting nature-a comparative perspective.
2018
Discusses the impact of the Myriad decision which stopped the patenting of natural genetic sequences.
Get citation
RC, D., J, N., & D, N. (2018). Patenting nature-a comparative perspective.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsy021

Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?
2014
Notes that the US Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring genes are not patentable through composition of matter claims.
Get citation
S, C., AL, M., & IB, V. d. V. (2014). Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4445

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

While past practice saw thousands of gene patents granted, the landmark 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics decisively ended the patenting of isolated, naturally occurring human DNA sequences, making the claim false under current law.

also asked as
  • Can corporations actually patent human DNA sequences?
  • Is it true that companies hold patents on human DNA?
  • Do corporations own patents for human genes?
  • Are human DNA sequences able to be patented by corporations?
Receipt History
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → REFUTED · 1305 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work