Slashdot Mirror

Oh, hey, why stop there, when you were just getting going? After all, the monopolist's argument complained about drug companies not being able to charge enough for their inventions, yet a considerable portion of the modern pharmacopeia comes from old [indigenous] knowledge. You know, odd tree barks and fungi and leaf decoctions. These details, hard-won by untold generations of experiment and oral tradition, are then translated into writing and big science, industrialized into reliability, proven, marketed, etc. etc. As biopirates, they appropriate the knowledge, claim ownership, and invest hugely in its marketing (a big part of its 'development'). The 'invention' is actually the implementation of mass production of ancient knowledge.

Then they whine about generic drug clones being theft. The patent system is the safe where they lock up the knowledge to claim it as theirs. It really is the california gold rush (with all its nastiness) out there in drug patent land.

"nanotubes on the lungs of rats produced more toxic response than quartz dust"

It might cross breed with normal seed and terminate it. What you would be left with is nothing but what the friendly multinational has to offer each year. That might not be good for you.

The whole "rape seed" Monsanto insanity is a good primer on these matters. An normal farmer in Canada was forced to destroy his crops because they were contaminated by neighbors using Monsanto seed. The US has pushed these practices onto the Iraqi puppet government, so you can see where they would really like things to go.

There are fundamental problems with seed patents that need to be corrected. The contamination issue is one that makes the whole idea look foolish and economically harmful.

The Captain Hook Award to Google in the category of "worst threat to genetic privacy," has attracted some strong reaction. A few people have written in Google's defense, claiming that Google isn't a biopirate and that the Coalition Against Biopiracy is wrong to name them. They argue that it isn't biopiracy because Google will not be patenting the genomic information they will be storing -- and, since anyone can access the information, its not monopolistic. They point out that this approach is actually anti-monopolistic because the genomic information would be freely available to everyone. And if genomic information is easily available, Google's defenders point out, it is more likely to facilitate the discovery of cures and new medical breakthroughs.

Here's our response:

First, the award wasn't for 'biopiracy' it was specifically for posing a 'threat to genetic privacy'. Even if Google makes all the genomic data it holds anonymous -- it is still possible to identify an individual's data by genetic fingerprinting. On Google Video, Google has a video of an internal talk on genomic databases where the speaker admits this is a big potential problem, and a troubling issue that Google is going to face in the future.

But whether or not genomic information is available for free or not is not the point - the important point is that it would facilitate access without consent. When you download a document from the internet (via Google) you have the implied consent of the person who posted it to that public space that it is now for common use - this is enough because this is only data and not much more - it is not as personal as an individual's genomic information. By contrast when you access somebody's genomic data you need to have explicit consent because this is something very personal that has an important bearing on their identity, health, right-to-privacy, personhood etc. Access to an individual's genomic information -- in the wrong hands -- opens up possibilities of discrimination in the workplace, for example. If Google makes all personal genomic data available for anyone to use it is also making that available to profit-making enterprises -- and it's not clear how they could put in place an adequate consent mechanism to do this. This data is not Google's to redistribute (and it shouldn't even be Craig Venter's). It is also misleading to think that this data is going to be freely and equally available to everyone, because only certain specialized knowledge enterprises have the ability to make use of such data, and, by and large they are private, for-profit and they won't re-distribute a penny back to the people whose genomic information they are using. Genomic information is not like software code and it's wrong to compare them -- it belongs very personally to individuals. When you use or distribute that information without explicit consent, there is a victim. The 2005 Captain Hook Award to Google is intended to raise questions and concerns about a future threat to genetic privacy. We believe these issues need public attention and should be widely debated to forestall the most dangerous and socially harmful scenarios.

The Coalition Against Biopiracy also received a few complaints about naming Craig Venter as a recipient of one of this year's Captain Hook Awards. We believe he's quite deserving. Go here for more background on Venter's 2004 global expedition to collect microbial biodiversity:

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=442
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=473

Venter is the flamboyant scientist who first grabbed headlines back in 1991. While employed at NIH, part of the US government's Human Genome Project, when he filed for US patents on thousands of gene sequences from the human brain.

Venter's global expedition to collect microbial diversity challenges national sovereignty and raises more doubts about the already problematic acce

The Captain Hook Award to Google in the category of "worst threat to genetic privacy," has attracted some strong reaction. A few people have written in Google's defense, claiming that Google isn't a biopirate and that the Coalition Against Biopiracy is wrong to name them. They argue that it isn't biopiracy because Google will not be patenting the genomic information they will be storing -- and, since anyone can access the information, its not monopolistic. They point out that this approach is actually anti-monopolistic because the genomic information would be freely available to everyone. And if genomic information is easily available, Google's defenders point out, it is more likely to facilitate the discovery of cures and new medical breakthroughs.

Here's our response:

First, the award wasn't for 'biopiracy' it was specifically for posing a 'threat to genetic privacy'. Even if Google makes all the genomic data it holds anonymous -- it is still possible to identify an individual's data by genetic fingerprinting. On Google Video, Google has a video of an internal talk on genomic databases where the speaker admits this is a big potential problem, and a troubling issue that Google is going to face in the future.

But whether or not genomic information is available for free or not is not the point - the important point is that it would facilitate access without consent. When you download a document from the internet (via Google) you have the implied consent of the person who posted it to that public space that it is now for common use - this is enough because this is only data and not much more - it is not as personal as an individual's genomic information. By contrast when you access somebody's genomic data you need to have explicit consent because this is something very personal that has an important bearing on their identity, health, right-to-privacy, personhood etc. Access to an individual's genomic information -- in the wrong hands -- opens up possibilities of discrimination in the workplace, for example. If Google makes all personal genomic data available for anyone to use it is also making that available to profit-making enterprises -- and it's not clear how they could put in place an adequate consent mechanism to do this. This data is not Google's to redistribute (and it shouldn't even be Craig Venter's). It is also misleading to think that this data is going to be freely and equally available to everyone, because only certain specialized knowledge enterprises have the ability to make use of such data, and, by and large they are private, for-profit and they won't re-distribute a penny back to the people whose genomic information they are using. Genomic information is not like software code and it's wrong to compare them -- it belongs very personally to individuals. When you use or distribute that information without explicit consent, there is a victim. The 2005 Captain Hook Award to Google is intended to raise questions and concerns about a future threat to genetic privacy. We believe these issues need public attention and should be widely debated to forestall the most dangerous and socially harmful scenarios.

The Coalition Against Biopiracy also received a few complaints about naming Craig Venter as a recipient of one of this year's Captain Hook Awards. We believe he's quite deserving. Go here for more background on Venter's 2004 global expedition to collect microbial biodiversity:

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=442
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=473

Venter is the flamboyant scientist who first grabbed headlines back in 1991. While employed at NIH, part of the US government's Human Genome Project, when he filed for US patents on thousands of gene sequences from the human brain.

Venter's global expedition to collect microbial diversity challenges national sovereignty and raises more doubts about the already problematic acce

The Human Genome Project was a collaborative effort, largely funded by government and public sources. The agencies involved in the research, however, seem to have a vested interest in keeping the data private, even going so far as to patent genetic sequences (isn't there "prior art" for all of my DNA? I call them "parents"). Freely available information, while often valuable, has no resale value. Can this be the true cause of The "Coalition Against Biopiracy" issueing what seems more like a political slander campaign than a genuine warning of wrongdoing?

Perhaps we should ask:

IPBN - Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network

P.O. Box 567

Cusco, Peru

Phone: +51 84 24-5021

email: ipbn@web.net

SEARICE - South East Asia Regional Inititiaves in Community Empowerment

Unit 331, Eagle Court Condominium

26 Matalino Street, Central District

Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Phone: (63 2) 433-7182, 433-2067

Fax: (63 2) 922-6710

email: searice@searice.org.ph

web: http://www.searice.org.ph/

ETC Group - Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration

431 Gilmour St, Second Floor,

Ottawa, ON Canada K2P 0R5

Tel: 1(613)241-2267

Fax: 1(613)241-2506

email: etc@etcgroup.org

web: http://www.etcgroup.org/

Also the ETC (an action group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration)--the same group that had lobbied against Monsanto's (nyse: MON - news - people ) genetically engineered crops in the 1990s--has called for nothing less than a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in commercial products.

Special Offer: Get in on the ground floor of a growth industry still in its infancy. Click here for a complete list of stocks in Josh Wolfe's "Nanosphere" portfolio and for up-and-coming private companies.

Yes, they are looking into it.

The use of Fluorescently labeled nanoparticles to determine the effect of particle size on translocation from the lung
NanoParticles Shown to Cause Brain Damage
etc. etc. etc.

Considering Redmond's slim odds of conquering developing nations

Don't count on it. Monsanto ... uh I mean Microsoft ... can muster lots of support for such a campaign.

The United States forbids poor countries from making generic versions of antiretroviral drugs for AIDS treatment. Given the limited financial resources involved, this will certainly cost lives.

Monsanto Company is suing farmers for re-using seed where patented genes have been found, whether said farmers wanted them or not.

How will software be any different? Countries developed enough to need office suites will be signing trade agreements with the United States. Undoubtedly there will be intellectual property conditions.

While some are all go for nanotechnology, others see potential for danger. Remember, people were afraid of vaccines, but they were also afraid of CFC's.

Harriman, Scotts' chief research scientist, counters that numerous studies by the company indicate the grass is unlikely to spread.

Hmmmm... sort of like those Monsanto studies that wrongly claimed their corn couldn't spread?

Don't trust corporately-funded "science"

Good question, though not too hard to research as there's a volume of data and it's a hot issue. Of course, it's controversial, since much of the research is influenced by agribusiness (esp. here in Canada -- AgCan is in industry's pocket) and that means that research is overly reductionist or just plain skewed.

Keywords to look for in your reference search: loss of topsoil in green revolution scenarios (effects of tilling, bare soil, industrial watering, monocrops, heavy feeding crops, pesticides); dependence of farming on chemical inputs; loss of seed sovereignty; crop diversity reduction; the effects of large-scale monocropping on the environment; water usage; permaculture; loss of local knowledge (microclimates, local pest management, seed varieties --again--, plant companions, etc); misguided pest management (overused pesticides etc.); distribution and ownership models that reduce local food security; and so on.

Some good places to start looking outside of google:
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Sustainable Farming Connection
FarmFolk/CityFolk
The Ram's Horn
World Resources Institute
WorldWatch Institute
Pesticide Action Network
Sustainable Agriculture Network
Permaculture
ETC Group

There, that should get you started. You want evidence? there's plenty out there.

They started as an agriculture research and advocacy group (RAFI) and morphed into ETC about the time they started discovering how broad the patenting system's enclosure of life forms and genetic structures was getting. It's an issue with huge implications, since ideas, biological structures, and living beings are being patented in sometimes outrageous ways.

They started as an agriculture research and advocacy group (RAFI) and morphed into ETC about the time they started discovering how broad the patenting system's enclosure of life forms and genetic structures was getting. It's an issue with huge implications, since ideas, biological structures, and living beings are being patented in sometimes outrageous ways.

I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time. Read information here. When people are injured by normal technology, they are just injured or killed and the rest of the world moves on. When people will be injured by nanotech, the changes will be small perhaps undetectable even, but could involve controlled changes to things as basic to us as humans as our DNA, the food we eat, and our brain systems Government rewiring of our brains some day? Can't be too far in the future.

So: help that makes you a slave is not really help at all, it just defers short term suffering for greater long-term suffering [oh, we can fix that knee for you for the next few months, but after that you'll never walk again, it's okay because we have a special deal on wheelchairs]. Further, tying GM reliance to food aid then crying 'criminal neglect' is disingenuous when agricultural subsidies and WTO/IMF policies cause as much suffering as any drought conditions.

And please try to be a little more scientific if you're going to be a proponent of technologies. The comparison of husbandry and breeding with genetic engineering is specious.

I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time. Read information here When people are injured by normal technology, they are just injured or killed and the rest of the world moves on. When people will be injured by nanotech, the changes will be small perhaps undetectable even, but could involve controlled changes to things as basic to us as humans as our DNA, the food we eat, and our brain systems Government rewiring of our brains some day? Can't be too far in the future.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize how the tobacco industry "spun" its perspective. One only has to read "The Big Down" to know how anti-technology they are. So one should not trust any other publications more than one trusts the claims of the average television commercial.

From the ETC Group website:
"ETC group is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. To this end, ETC group supports socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized and it addresses international governance issues and corporate power."
(http://www.etcgroup.org/about.asp)

Beware of any research backed by a political action group. Emotions tend to outweight and warp data.

68% of all satistics are wrong!

Yes.

Take a look at some of their comics

Almost as good as Jack Chick!

Yes.

Take a look at some of their comics

Almost as good as Jack Chick!

In short, it's not a scholarly work, it's a scare piece pandering to an ignorant (and largely scientifically illiterate) public. What's really pathetic is that the NYTimes gave these idiots any press. Blank newsprint would have greater potential for education.... At least it does have a bit of redeeming value; you can use those column inches to light the fireplace.