In a Supreme Court test of whether a company can be granted a patent on the genes in the human body, a majority of the justices indicated during Monday's oral arguments that the court is likely to rule that a human gene can’t be patented. 

It would be one thing, several of the justices said during Monday’s oral arguments, for a company to seek a patent on a test for breast cancer that was developed by analyzing a human gene, but it would be going too far to be awarded a patent on the gene itself.

"What's the difference between snipping off a piece of the liver or kidney, and seeking a patent on that, and seeking a patent on a piece of a gene?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito made a different analogy, to someone seeking a patent on a plant found in the Amazon rain forest that bore leaves containing a cancer cure. "You could patent the process used to get the chemical out and the use of the result, but you cannot patent the plant," he said. 

Stelios Varias / Reuters file photo

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

The case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. The test can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.

Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer.

Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.

In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.

"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who argued the case for Myriad.

The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.

"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.

"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.

But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.

In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.

The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.

"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.

Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.

The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.

But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.

The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."

Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.

As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.

The Obama administration has urged the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."   

NBC's Tom Curry contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:17 AM EDT

Kristina Young / Handout / EPA

The USS Harry S. Truman at an undisclosed location in the Atlantic Ocean in December 2012.

Published 6:30 p.m. ET: Budget constraints are prompting the U.S. Navy to cut back the number of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region from two to one, the latest example of how contentious fiscal battles in Washington are impacting the U.S. military.

According to Defense Department officials, the USS Harry S. Truman, which was set to leave for the Persian Gulf region on Friday, will now remain stateside, based in Norfolk, Virginia. 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the change to the department’s “two-carrier policy” in the Persian Gulf region early Wednesday.

The U.S. has steadily kept two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf for much of the last two years. In 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a directive to keep two in the area given the volatility of the region.

The cutback is largely a result of automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration, passed by Congress during the summer of 2011. Congress has failed to pass a budget for the fiscal year, and has instead opted on passing legislation that will keep spending at the same level as last year. But that means the Pentagon has been operating with less money and is unsure of what the future holds for its bottom line.

Under sequestration, the Navy would lose $4 billion over the next six months, the last half of fiscal year 2013. The Navy was already $4.6 billion in the hole for this year because the continuing resolution for 2013 was budgeted at 2012 rates.

Navy officials say the Defense Department ordered members of their branch and all services to “prepare for sequestration,” even though it’s not yet clear the automatic budgets cuts will kick in next month. 

“We cut back to one carrier in the Gulf region to save money now, or wait until sequestration and be forced to cut back to zero carriers,” a senior defense official told NBC News.

It’s not certain whether the Defense Department or the White House would permit a zero carrier presence in the Persian Gulf, no matter what the budget constraints, given rising tensions over Iran. The Truman would still conduct exercises off the US East Coast and would be “surge ready” in the event of an emergency or disaster.

A statement from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little assured that the United States will “maintain a robust presence” in the area, but cited the pending sequestration cuts as the reason the Navy sent Panetta the request.

“This prudent decision enables the U.S. Navy to maintain these ships to deploy on short notice in the event they are needed to respond to national security contingencies,” read the statement.

Revelation of the cutbacks comes the same day as news that Panetta is recommending military pay increases be limited to one percent in 2014. Uniformed military will still get a raise, but it will be much smaller “to reflect the difficult budget decisions” facing the department, a defense official told NBC News.

At a speech Wednesday, the outgoing secretary of defense warned that the budget battles in Washington are putting America at risk.  

“The Department of Defense and other agencies across government have been living under a serious shadow -- the shadow of sequestration ... Today, with another trigger for sequestration approaching on March 1st, the Department of Defense is facing the most serious readiness crisis in over a decade,” he said to a crowd at Georgetown University.

“Make no mistake, if these cuts happen there will be a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in military readiness,” Panetta said in his speech Wednesday.

“We have begun an all-out effort to plan for how to operate under such a scenario, but it is already clear that no good options exist.”

On Tuesday, President Obama called on Congress to pass “a small package of spending cuts and tax reforms” to avoid the automated cuts set to kick in at the beginning of next month.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Kelly Ayotte – who have toured the country warning that sequestration cuts could put U.S. national defense at risk – responded on Wednesday by introducing a bill that would avoid cuts by slashing the federal workforce by 10 percent. 

Additional reporting from Courtney Kube

By Tom Brokaw
NBC News
Columbia, S.C.

There are only two days left until South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary and a new NBC News/Marist poll shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is gaining ground. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 10-point lead over Gingrich, but Gingrich now has the support of 24 percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state – and the support of the latest candidate to drop-out, Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

I spent two full days in South Carolina, from Greenville-Spartanburg to Columbia and many stops between, including the old mill towns of Laurens and Newberry. The Palmetto State has so many parts -- the coastal areas, the midlands, the western front -- and they're all distinct in their geography and culture. But after speaking with people throughout the region, I found nearly everyone agreed that this year the economy trumps all in South Carolina, a deeply religious state where social issues such as abortion and gay rights have played larger roles in the past.

Ernie Segars, the county administrator in Laurens, S.C., said although religious issues are “very important” to voters, “jobs and the economy are the major issues right now.”

“I think when the economy’s better and things are improved, and certainly the social issues are important and will have a role,” Segars said.

Watch Tom Brokaw tonight on “Nightly News” as he connects with voters in the political battleground of South Carolina, the second in a series of reports called “Main Street, USA.”  Click HERE to watch the first report, from Iowa.

Gov. Nikki Haley, a Tea Party darling who has struggled with her ratings her first year in office, echoed that sentiment.

“We’re looking for a president that understands it’s all about jobs,” said Haley, who has endorsed Romney.  “The hardest part about my job has been the Obama administration … The people of South Carolina saw that we passed by the will of the people legal immigration reform and the Department of Justice stopped it … The people have experienced the mandates and the stops of the federal government and they’re frustrated with it. And so they’re looking for someone that can go in day one and say, ‘Lay off the states, let them do their jobs and let’s get people back to work.’”

South Carolina's unemployment rate has hovered close to 10 percent, even with a new BMW plant and the arrival of some support industries.   

I also spoke with the state’s U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican who is being criticized by his own party and a variety of other party activists for his occasional departure from Republican orthodoxy.

“The question for the Republican party, would we put raising revenue on the table to solve our entitlement problem?” he asked. “Will our Democratic friends put on the table working longer and reducing benefits? And every time you put these ideas on the table, people come at you pretty hard.”

After talking with dozens of people, I encountered the most passionate opinions at a Ron Paul debate party at Bailey’s sports bar in Greenville: all working class and mostly young, many of whom had not been involved in politics before.

I asked Sandy Monroe what she found so appealing about Ron Paul.

“He challenged my ideas,” she said.  “He sent me back to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and to the Founding Fathers … He could win if the people understood what he stood for.  If people like me would actually go study what he says, it makes sense.  And it’s our freedom that he’s talking about.”

But for Robert Whitney, “it’s a trust issue.”

“Everything that Romney says, he’s flip-flopped too much,” Whitney said. “When there’s big government people saying that Ron Paul has integrity, that he’s a man that stands by his word, then I mean, I think that’s all the proof you need.”

Tune in to “Nightly News” tonight for more of Tom Brokaw’s reporting from South Carolina and join the conversation on the “Nightly News” Facebook page.