Last night, Stephen Colbert railed against the ACLU's lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, which control patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. Last month, a federal district court judge ruled that these patents are invalid.

Colbert sent us a message: "Just a quick side-note to the ACLU: you might not want to make enemies of the people who own cancer." He then showed a clip of the 60 Minutes segment about our case, and asked: "why cure cancer if you can't make a buck off of it?"

We're all for capitalism, Stephen, but not when it sacrifices women's health and scientific freedom.

This week, as the ACLU welcomes our clients Professors Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan to the United States — scholars who, until recently, were barred from entering the country because of their criticism of U.S. policy and who will be speaking to audiences in New York today and tomorrow — we also celebrating the news of another almost-excluded scholar being granted permission to enter the country.

Dr. Edward Horgan is a well-known Irish activist who served as an Irish Defense Force officer for 22 years. He has also worked as the International Secretary of the Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance, was a United Nations peacekeeper and an international election monitor in countries like Ghana, Armenia, Zimbabwe, East Timor and Ukraine. Dr. Horgan also happens to be an outspoken critic of the U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition, and cofounded an organization called Shannon Watch, which has documented the use of Shannon Airport in western Ireland as a stopover for U.S. rendition flights.

Dr. Horgan was set to speak at an important conference taking place this week at Duke University called "Weaving a Net of Accountability: Taking on extraordinary rendition at the state and regional level." Organized by a coalition of human rights groups, including North Carolina Stop Torture Now, the conference will convene legal experts (including the ACLU's very own Steven Watt), human rights activists, journalists, religious leaders, academics and health care professionals to explore how to push for accountability for extraordinary rendition in North Carolina locally and regionally in an effort to push for accountability on the federal level.

On March 15, a North Carolina News & Observer op-ed reported that the U.S. government revoked Dr. Horgan's 10-year, multiple-entry visa without explanation, even though he had visited the United States just last year to see family and to attend the presidential inauguration. Like Professors Habib and Ramadan, it seemed that Dr. Horgan was being targeted because of his ideas; specifically, his strong criticism of torture, rendition, and arbitrary detention.

Several congressional offices in North Carolina and Massachusetts joined private groups and citizens across the country in protesting Dr. Horgan's exclusion. In North Carolina, Reps. David Price and Mel Watt and Sen. Kay Hagan were helpful in making inquiries with the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Dublin. The balance appeared to tip, though, only when the Irish media began covering the story and when letters to the editor from Irish citizens started pouring in. In short, Dr. Horgan's exclusion, like the ideological exclusion of Professors Habib and Ramadan, started to look like a potential PR disaster for the United States:

Today, just one day before his scheduled departure for the United States, Dr. Horgan finally learned that he would be granted a new U.S. visa after all. He's packing his bags and heading for Shannon Airport — not to protest this time, but to board a plane bound for the U.S.

If you're in Durham, North Carolina, this week, the "Weaving a Net of Accountability" conference — with the participation of Dr. Horgan and ACLU attorney Steven Watt — is taking place on Thursday, April 8, through Saturday, April 10, on the campus of Duke University.

Last night, 60 Minutes aired a segment about the gene patent case we won last week . Check it out:

You can learn more about the case at www.aclu.org/brca. You can join our Facebook group, Don’t Patent My Genes! Liberate the Breast Cancer Genes! to support and follow the ACLU’s efforts on this issue.

On Monday, federal district court Judge Robert Sweet made history by issuing the first ruling ever that human genes can’t be patented.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has been issuing patents on human genes for over 20 years, giving private corporations, individuals, and universities exclusive rights to those genes and to test, study, or even look at them. This is the first time a court has said that this practice is unlawful.

Late Monday afternoon, the judge issued his decision in our breast cancer gene patents lawsuit, which challenges the government’s granting of and Myriad Genetics’ control of patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.

The judge declared that all 15 patent claims that we challenged are invalid, based on the fact that they cover products of nature and abstract ideas. He wrote in his decision:

The resolution of these motions is based upon long recognized principles of molecular biology and genetics: DNA represents the physical embodiment of biological information, distinct in its essential characteristics from any other chemical found in nature. It is concluded that DNA’s existence in an “isolated” form alters neither this fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body nor the information it encodes. Therefore, the patents at issue directed to “isolated DNA” containing sequences found in nature are unsustainable as a matter of law and are deemed unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

(You can read more about our legal arguments here and here.)

The judge ruled that Myriad’s claim — that the “isolation” of the BRCA genes from the surrounding DNA makes them into something distinct and patentable — is fundamentally flawed and nothing more than semantics:

Many, however, including scientists in the field of molecular biology and genomics, have considered this practice a “lawyer’s trick” that circumvents the prohibitions on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.

This is a huge victory for women’s health and scientific freedom. Myriad has already said that they will appeal, but if this decision is upheld, it will mean that the thousands of researchers and clinicians who have the ability to conduct BRCA testing and provide results to women, will no longer be prohibited from doing so. This could well mean that the price of this test will come down, making it accessible to many women for whom the current cost (Myriad charges over $3,000) is prohibitive. It would also mean that our six individual women plaintiffs and the thousands of other women affected by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer can more freely access critical information about their own genetics, such as getting a second opinion before taking drastic preventative measures like mastectomy or having their ovaries removed. Finally, it would mean that the PTO would change its policy and no longer issue patents on human genes.

The judge noted the significance of his decision:

The resolution of the issues presented to this Court deeply concerns breast cancer patients, medical professionals, researchers, caregivers, advocacy groups, existing gene patent holders and their investors, and those seeking to advance public health.

Because our lawsuit challenges the whole notion of gene patenting, this decision could have far-reaching effects beyond the BRCA genes. Approximately 20 percent of all human genes have been patented, including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, asthma, and many other illnesses.

This is a moment of triumph for our plaintiffs, but the fight is not over. Stay tuned, and if you haven’t already, be sure to watch a video of our plaintiffs and sign a message of support for them at www.aclu.org/brca.