As we've been reporting, Myriad Genetics is the subject of a lawsuit organized by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation challenging the constitutionality of its patent on a human gene related to breast cancer. At a court hearing in February, the company's lawyers not surprisingly used grandiose language, claiming that a ruling against it would "effectively unravel the foundation of the entire biotechnology industry."

But this week, in a presentation to its investors, Myriad's CEO downplayed the relevance of the case. Peter Meldrum said that "regardless of the outcome of this particular lawsuit, it will not have a material adverse effect on the company … or on the future revenues of our products."

This inconsistency was noticed by a reporter at GenomeWeb, who wrote:

While Myriad presented a tempered and nonchalant attitude to investors about the impact of the lawsuit on its business, the company and other defendants have told a different story in the courtroom in response to the broader implications of the suit, which is essentially challenging the constitutionality of patenting all genetic sequences on First Amendment grounds.

Myriad can't have it both ways. Its executives should be careful about making such assertions in public, as the plaintiffs may seize upon them and introduce them in the courtroom.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• Gene Patent Challenge Gets Support in the Press
• IP lawyers defend IP
• Battle Over Human Gene Patents Builds
• CGS and other groups file brief in support of challenge to gene patents
• Gene Patent Lawsuit Draws Comments
• ACLU Lawsuit Says Gene Patents are Unconstitutional

A recent segment on the widely-broadcast public radio show Marketplace asks whether entrepreneurship is in our genes. It cites an upcoming book, Born Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders: How Your Genes Affect Your Worklife. Author Scott Shane is a Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. Despite not having a science degree, his website lists six papers on the topic, three of which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals: Management Science, Journal of Business Venturing, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Presumably, these articles were reviewed by experts in business and management, not behavioral genetics. Three of them, however, have co-authors from the Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology Unit at King’s College London.

To all of their credit, these papers use the appropriate qualifying language. They speak of multiple, unspecified "genetic factors," and elaborate that

we also are not suggesting that there is a specific gene for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a complex phenotype, and it is very unlikely that there is a strong association between one particular gene and the tendency to engage in it.Moreover, the relationship between specific genes and the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship is likely to be quite complex, given the length of the causal chain from genes to entrepreneurial activity. Rather, we propose that the effect of genes on sensation seeking is likely to be epistatic; multiple genes may interact with each other in order to increase the likelihood for a person to be sensation seeking

Knowing which genes encourage entrepreneurship, and who has them, could help educators design better programs to spur business-creation. It could even help venture capitalists pick whose startup to fund, though there's no guarantee the genes actually lead to success.

Judging by the online comments on the article, criticism of the segment is widespread.

Previous Genes of the Week:

• Being a Gangsta
• Victimhood
• Virginity
• Investing
• Popularity

The Center for Genetics and Society is seeking an intern for Summer 2010 to work in support of the full range of CGS activities. For details, go to our Jobs page.

Remember Vladimir Zhirinovsky? In the early 1990s, he was viewed with alarm as an ultra-nationalist Russian who might become President. His view of the West, and the U.S. in particular, was: "It was all the same to them who ruled Russia, czars or Communists. Their goal was to destroy Russia." Guests at the 1994 Congress of his Liberal Democratic Party (a spectacularly mis-named organization) included, according to the New York Times, "a German neo-fascist, a delegation sent by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and a Russian general recently freed from prison for his role in the uprising against President Boris N. Yeltsin in October." He was unapologetically racist and on American TV called for "the preservation of the white race" and urged his hosts not to turn the country over to blacks and Hispanics.

President Clinton refused to meet with Zhirinovsky, on the grounds that he was "beyond the pale." In 1996, Pat Buchanan rejected Zhirinovsky's endorsement, which provoked an obscenity-filled response from the Russian, the politest part of which was: "Who are you afraid of? Zionists?" Even the Russian Duma (parliament) eventually suspended him briefly for spitting at another member and provoking an all-out brawl that involved at least 20 people.

Zhirinovsky has never gone away, but his schemes have become, if anything, nuttier. He has supported polygamy ("because we have 10 million unmarried women") and proposed arming the entire population to shoot migrant birds and thus avoid bird flu. And now he's advocating cloning:

"We should clone clever, talented people, a list of people to be cloned should be created. We should have new Einsteins, Kurchatovs, Tsiolkovskys, Yesenins, Pushkins."

Yes, he also wants to clone himself. "This would be good, this would be a benefit for the nation," he explained.

Fortunately, in Russia as in the U.S., most people disagree. The Duma just extended a moratorium on reproductive human cloning.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• Transhumanist libertarian: Still against democracy
• Michael Jackson, cloning, and assisted reproduction: The trivial and the troubling
• Pay no attention to the cloning clown
• Bizarre Cloners and Serious Questions