Slashdot Mirror
PTO's New DNA Guidelines
Robert Wilde writes "The National Law Journal has published an analysis of the PTO's new proposed DNA guidelines. The PTO will accept written comments until March 22. " I think this is one of the most important issues of the upcoming years - can company's patent genes that exist in all of us? What work should be done in genetics? What do you folks think?
Has slashdot been slashdotted? [an error occurred while patenting your mom]
Hell no, companies shouldn't be able to patent naturally occuring genes. I mean, these things have existed in all forms of life for a few billion years for crying out loud! All they did was figure out what the gene codes for in the human body...a patent on that information would make all carriers of that particular gene a criminal, and that entire notion is just insane...
All gene work should be open and unpatenable. This is not about protect company profits but the human race. We can not patent any aspect of humanity. Work that is done must be kept totally open and freely available or it should not be done at all.
friends! don't miss this exciting new open source (tm) offering!!
yes, you too can have your very own hot young actress with the new patented hot young actress gene goo!
late nights at the computer got you uptight? lack of games for linux got you frustrated? bored with the latest slashdot fare? well fret no more!
just pour this patented goodness into your plastiwomb (available from ronco for a mere $19.99), microwave on medium for 9 minutes and voila! hot, open source action ready to go!
the handsome rewards (indeed) are well worth the measley $999.99!
thank you.
the fat-time charlie online serial
Nothing genetic in situ or restored by non-patentable arrangement would ever infringe. You can donate, you can still get pre-existing legal considerations for donating. AFAIK. A little learning is a dangerous thing, too. Personal opinion only.
Company's: contraction of 'company is' *or* possessive, as in 'the company's revenues'
Companies: more than one company.
When did this whole thing of using an apostrophe for a regular plural start, anyway?
And of course it always has to be a company that does the research for money. Ever heard of public institutions like universities ? The purpose of all research is not profit for companies. The most important purpose of research is to further human knowledge and that, often, is reward enough. It's not all about the money, but you 'merkins seem to think it is.
I've seen it many times on patent threads. If company x or company y then... This is IMO a very dangerous mindset to have. Large companies have enough power as it is and patents aren't helping to keep their power down at acceptable levels. Companies are not democratic and do not have a conscience. IMO the most power should always be in the hands of democratically elected people. Also, sometimes it would be better to publically fund research, especially in medicine.
I'm quite certain that if the current trend continues, we'll see Gibson's vision of the future. Personally I wouldn't want it to come to that.
ACYou know, his parents probably could have sued for derivation of a prior work... Or at least filed copyright violation on his genetic sequence.
> Noone will develop a treatment or product (like a cancer cure) based on that unless they publish,
> and they have no reason to publish unless they get a royalty.
Of course this only applies to researchers working in a commercial environment, there are plenty working in universities who don't have this motivation.
I think that people who don't really understand an issue shouldn't get so rung up and strongly opinionated about it.
What do you mean by this? That the things they don't patent are worse? So what's wrong with the patents? Of course they aren't sharing their valuable data with everyone; they need to make sure that the millions and millions of dollars that they're spending can be recouped by licensing patented sequences and other proprietary information. That's what these companies do (btw I'm not sure which 1 company you're talking about because there are at least 3-4 that are patenting genes on a large scale... probably 30 or more are doing so on a smaller scale).
But if the company didn't do that research in the first place because they had no protection for all the time and money they spent, the people would be dead anyway. Of course, what you described is obscene for a few reasons: 1) the company would only make money by licensing the gene to drug companies and 2) if a company were just sitting on an important gene of medical benefit, the gov't would surely step in and allow anyone to use that gene. There's no reason that other companies couldn't clone the same gene once the sequence is known... it would be trivial. So nothing will be prevented.
As far as I know, you can patent discoveries, and always could.
It isn't on synthesized genes per se, but an isolated form of a gene. If you look at a gene patent you can see all the information that is required in order for the PTO to even consider granting rights... it's quite extensive.
Only if you used a special process by which a surgeon would take out a sperm and egg and combine them in some non-natural way and then grow up the resulting fertilized egg.
Slighty amusing in the tiniest slightly-upturned-corner-of-lip way, maybe, but not insightful.
If they seriously try to patent common genes, I think we should speak up and demonstrate prior usage... I've been using my genes for over 26 years... I claim prior discovery!
It's not all about the money...
Ohhh, but it is. Even Universities do research for money. That's why every (nearly every??) has a department which is responsible for so called intellectual property.
Naturally, but money is not an end, it is a means. Companies OTOH, are gathering as much economic _power_ as they can and if the trend continues no goverment will be able to stop them ie. they don't want to be compensated fairly for research, they want to get filthy rich. I'd like to point out that innovation should be rewarded, but the current rewards are potentially too high, mostly due to the long patent periods (I'd say 3-5 years is appropriate). Another thing is that most companies do research that is profitable in the short term and a lot of the research done in universities is not necessarily marketable in the short term.
As for IP, our university doesn't have a department for that (AFAIK). I do research at the CS dept. and software patents aren't allowed here. It doesn't really bother me, since I don't have the time to exploit my findings commercially. The whole concept of intellectual property in CS is absurd. In today's networked world a lot of the ideas reach a lot of people and many of them reach the same conclusions. The first to patent those conclusions gets monopoly for 17(?) years. Besides I don't want to wait 17 years to utilize some good algorithm in free software and I'm not going to pay for it either (and actually don't have the money to pay for it anyway, with the licence fees extorted). I think everyone should be allowed to write any piece of software they see fit and be able to give it away for free (I consider this an instance of the right of free speech). This is being seriously threatened by software patents, the most effective way to compete with free software.
ACas for Gibson's world, are you talking about the sprawl series, or the last three (the bridge series?)
Actually I was thinking more about cyberpunk in general. Overpopulation, more uneven wealth distribution than ever, more money means more rights, nature in ruins, multinational megacorporations running the world with no humanity, no conscience.
The more you think about it the more it seems true. While I'm not arguing that economical considerations aren't important, I'm saying that corporate research is short-term marketability directed and long lasting IP is actually enabling them to get monopolies in key areas, and the monopolies enable them to gather enough economic wealth to affect legislation and goverment. Basically the world is turning colder and more inhumane. The corporations just use their economic power to get more of it and the advancement of knowledge is just a side effect. The overall goal of every goverment should be to make the world a better place. I'm not sure this is where we're headed.
How much do you think a cure for cancer would cost the patient if it was corporate directed even if the production costs weren't high ? Probably it would cost everything the patient has, at least if it's a terminal cancer. Obviously, these things need to be goverment regulated.
AC
Having been the person who did the sequencing of the Presenilin 2 gene (PS2), one of the early onset Alzheimer disease genes, I can assure you this won't happen. Genetic research is carried out by countless labs, and the number of ways to carry out this type of research are limited. That means a lot of talented people in academic labs are usually within days of parallel discovery. I was working as quickly as the creation of newly discovered sequencing primers allowed at the end of the project, prior to patent submission, because we knew that there were at least 2 other labs doing the same thing.
Not all genes are obvious disease genes, true, but don't we have a human genome research project? At the Bioinformatics seminar that I attended yesterday all the databases mentioned were public source. The money being spent is for public across the board research to allow the next phase of research: proprietary computer search methods to uncover the gold in all that (freely available) data.
They didn't write the code on the DNA, they can't patent it. IMHO.
Amazon lawyers may believe their one-click patent is broad enough to cover one-pill cures ;-/
"... If that were the case then the information would _never_ become a part of human knowledge."
:)
This would not be true for genes since the information in genes are found in nature. All you need is equipment, DNA samples, time and scienific curiosity to read it.
As an engineer, this is what I think it should be:
- Patents should be a legal mechanism to protect ideas and method (ie. application of scientific knowledge that arises from human creativity) from being copied for profit. Of course, to me, things like software, the "look-and-feel" of OS, etc. are legal fuzzy areas that I would let the legal system decide. Basically, innovative engineering type knowledge falls in this category. Hence, pills, therapies and apparatus that comes from gene research are patentable.
- You should NOT be able to patent anything at is raw scientific knowledge (ie. information that is inherent in nature). This would clearly mean things like genes, fundamental equations, etc. Basically, scientific-type knowledge falls in this category.
- In short, Scientific knowledge should not be patentable. The CREATIVE application of science should be patentable (very obvious stuff should not be).
This is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree
First, and only if you don't mind answering this, what University are you doing research at?
I'm in Europe. The country I'm in doesn't allow software patents. I'm an AC on this thread, so I won't answer that in more detail.
BTW, I agree that genetics-related patents patents are necessary in the current situation. The investment in research is quite big. However I'm very much in favor of goverment regulation of the cost of healthcare and medicine.
Software patents OTOH, rarely cost as much to develop and research as genetics and the field is advancing rapidly. Most software patents are actually patents on mathematical methods and IMO should be banned. Take for instance wavelet-compression (I used to research signal compression). Wavelets were invented by mathematicians and are quite clearly a conclusion of mathemathics and their properties can be inferred from the axioms of mathematics. However, when you combine that with a computer it's instantly patentable (quite a few applications of wavelets are patented). Arithmetic coding is patented as well, that is why .mp3 uses huffman and not arithmetic coding.
In software it's particularly frustrating since it's very easy produce software that infringes on a patents. Any competent programmer can do it and many do it by accident. I'd like to feel comfortable that I can program the way I like and not be threatened by a handful of companies when I finally decide to release a product. The problem is that this also applies to free software (which is mostly what I intend to write).
ACWhen can I register my patent for the 1-click shopping gene?
I can see where this is leading, some woman is going to patent the Y Chromasome, so all men have to pay her to keep it, otherwise it's Patent infringement. I'm not giving up MY Y Chromasome!
Thanks to my parents I have an 'inherited' immunity to two common viruses. Although the researchers only say "it's because of your Levis" -Geek medico sense of humour- I made a submission to the European Commission on this very subject. I felt so strongly that I should have sole rights to my genes and therefore be free to to give them away freely as in GPL (sort of) much the same way we give blood here in the UK. I have added a condition to all the blood taken by researchers that it is given only on the condition that it is also freely available to anyone who requests it and that these conditions must be accepted by all third parties. I note with interest that the Slazenger Institute at Cambridge UK has published the first batch of sequenced DNA (Nr. 23) on the Net so everyone can have it. Are US researchers doing the same??
Like most of the patenting laws, the idea of patenting was intended to encourage research and development, and open transfer of information and like all the other areas gene patenting is being seriously abused. The traditionalist view is that the profit from patenting the gene documenting and discovery encourages research companies to invest their funds into this ...but this isn't happening. Especially where profit oriented company research is concerned - what is identified is still kept quiet until it is considered that the gain from publication is greater than the negative of distributing information to the competition.
:(
If a company doesn't consider an area to be likely to produce "sufficient" profit, they won't follow that line of research. I've talked to and heard tales from researchers working for private corps commenting on how they aren't free to follow their own research unless they can show the likelihood of "significant" profit. These are the types of places that are patenting the isolation of new genes without going further. Sort of like gene squatting
Being an open source advocate I found it pretty stomach turning when I was doing my post-grad in genetics because it is relatively closed mouthed and I was used to the idea of distributing information "for the greater good". Gene patenting laws are and will be abused by large corporations with their own self interest as the primary goal.
I'm now changing over to computing because I like the atmosphere more... (I was especially put off by companies such as Monsanto who have an *appalling* track record).
I'd hope that, while known for their apathy in non-tech areas, that the techies who have seen the effects of these sorts of laws on computing act on this.
It would be a loss to social progress if the basic gene maps were patented, because this would prevent the many various activities that could be carried out with those maps. It is more to the benefit of society, and eventually to science and industry, that the basic gene maps are open source.
Based on this, a wealth of opportunities is possible. Patenting processes to mine and manipulate gene maps to solve specific problems, and the processes to deliver and apply gene therapies. There are innumerable commercial opportunities that would be stifled by keeping the gene maps closed source.
You must remember, also, that it is going to take some time to data mine and otherwise process and experiment with gene therapies. The gene maps, as they stand now, are built from a limited subset of humans, and are a very complex interweave of many variables. Finding out which are relavent for various purposes, and combinations thereof, is the next step. The argument may then be, that in this next step, that should also be open source.
Perhaps it is wise to draw the analogy with chemicals, in that the discovery of basic chemicals and constituent parts of electromechanical systems was open source.
In the end, who will benefit from the closed source model ? The Wellcome Trust is already in the process of mapping the pool, and the argument could be that this will be accelerated by the free market (US startups) if genes could be patented.
I would suggest the following evidence for why genes should not be patented: 1) the basic premise that genes are a natural discovery, similar to that of chemistry, biology, etc; and that if they were "invented", then the case may be different; 2) the weaker premise that for economic and technological progress, the patenting of the gene pool will cause far further damage than it not being patented.
matthew.gream@pobox.com
heh...2am message tag... OK, we're probably having some communications issues, but I'll play one more time before I have to crash...
At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you?re going.
This seems irrelevant to me.
Where we are going is the open release of information.
The question regarding "the best way" is: Is the best way to get there by creating an economic incentive to release information, or let information be released at a different pace through non-economic incentives?
Do we agree on that?
you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind.
I'm with you 100 %. I also agree that profits are not a goal... but you said :
creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world)
There are 2 seperate items there. Stronger patents will help getting medical technology "created" faster, but it will adversely affect the dissemination of the information.
Or more specificly, while the information will be disseminated, it will not be done in a method which allows it to be useful. The only way to get the use out of it would be to violate or render useless the economic protectionthat the patent extends. What good is a cure for breast cancer if the patenting company prices it above the means of most people. I can show theoreticly that any company acting as a monopoly in a contstrained market will restrict quantity, or inflate price to maximize thier profits (there are some exceptions based on increasing returns to scale and such, though this is not one).
Summary: Patents have a social cost. Mathematicly. In this example, in human lives, and disproportionately human lives who are already facing the suffering of poverty.
Of course, your point about speed of rollout is valid. Patents can be shown to have a social benefit.
But that gets us back to the "extent to which" argument.
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
Thank you for this discussion!
Pax -- Ob
An argument for genetic patents (or patents in general) that I see again and again are to the tune of "without patents, we will not have the research".
To which I say "Of course we will have the research, just at a different pace. The fact that the human genome project exists is testiment to the will of (some) people to get this research done despite the prospect of future monopoly profits".
Please convince me otherwise.
Also, as a country where we can theoriticly change the law through taking action in the political process, we could impose such rules as lowering patent protection to 3 years.
Could not that be beneficial?
I guess my point is that the benefits of patents are a function of deltas in multi-variable functions, and that any truely black and white statement really isn't going to be correct (although it may be politicly efficacious).
I've seen good arguments for patent protections of some kind, but I'm still not convinced that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to limit the current system. (This without regard to pragmatic and ethical issues with such things as software, business models, or genetic algorythms).
For what it is worth, the older I get, the less I find I know. I hope I don't come across as preachy- I really am searching for an argument to change my mind.
Pax -- Ob
I have to give this a hefty "bah". :)
You both picked archtypical arguments on the poles of the issue. Patents are useful to the extent which they speed "discovery" (or innovation, or whatever you want to label it).
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents. It certainly can be shown to have happened again and again in the past (It can also be shown how some technology was kept hidden through trade secret mechanisms which could have benefitted society more had it been released under patent). Its the rate of innovation that is at question (again, I'm using innovation, but discovery would work just as well).
IMHO, Patents have a valid use, but the extent to which they are applied is negatively correlated with the cost to society so they should be scrutinized and limited as much as possible.
Unfortunately that isn't happening. And as much as the middle ground is probably where the answer to this lies, I think it may be better to argue against patents, at least until they become more reasonable.
Ah well.... I do think the original posters point about the original intent of patent is a valid one.
Pax -- Ob
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly.
:)
OK, in that case, what you are saying is valid. I may take umbrage at that much, much part, but that is only because I haven't seen data.
What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Ahh...but our laws don't do that. To guarentee the maximum rate of discovery, we should guarentee the monopoly for life! Maybe even extend patents in other ways. But your point about pragmatism is well taken.
I agree that a pragmatic solution is best. I would favor modifying the patent system to provide protection for 2 years. Enough to guarentee return on research, but enough to bring in competition quick enough so that the dissinfranchised can get the same quality of care as the rest of us.
Bear in mind that 96% of research (in the world) is done in less than 10 countries [1]. We are quickly getting into a social justice issue if there is a distrobutional conflict with dispersing technology to 3rd world nations (hint: there is).
I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
Hmmm... I care how others feel because I think they have wisdom to share with me. However, Im not really concerned with morality. I'm concerned with what is best for humanity as a whole. You have failed to convince me that the good of protection outweighs the bad of protection (not that it matters).
What I really want to say is that there are times in economic analysis where we can say that something is true based on theories of rationality, competitive behavior, and a myriad assortment of other factors. With patents, we have a fundamental positive result pitted against a fundamental negative result, and we can't say what is best without studying data. I have looked hard and not found any (non-anectdotal) data.
In the absence of data or undisputed theory, opinionated people such as ourselves can discuss our thoughts, but can't be sure of our "correctness".
I guess I should apologise for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive.
[1] Bayoumi, Tarnim, Coc, Helpman "R&D spillovers in global growth" : 1995
Pax -- Ob
(or at least some of them).
Specificly, I am referring to an interesting story I heard on NPR this morning referring to a report on the British public health system.
To summarize, it said that even though the current flu epidemics were throwing into sharp relief the problems of the public system, that system would survive. What it would NOT handle would be the costs of using genetic processes that were currently being patented, and would presumably come into economic use in 10 to 20 years (these may be conservative numbers- I really don't know).
The interesting thing is to what extent liberal governments will be willing to bear the brunt of a foreign nations intellectual property.
You see various well known international violations of IP now, but even in those situations, it is hard to see how the governments are in direct conflict with supporting the IP. Once an incentive is in place to circumvent the international law, I would expect far more countries choosing to shun WTO involvement just to avoid the TRIPS agreement.
To throw out an incredibly ill thought out prediction= It is possible that the costs of supporting international IP will outweigh the gains of WTO membership sometime in the future- especially for developing nations, or nations which can utilize semi-protectionary measures such as regional free trade zones to mitigate the loss of truely international trade.
Just some random thoughts...
Pax -- Ob
A biotech company may have spent tens of years and billions of dollars on a discovery of that magnitude, and you expect them to just give it away?
well if that's the case, where's the ROI? and, if researcher's know their work will be essentially stolen from them (let's not mince words, that is what you propose) why would they even begin?
I hope genes that are discovered and not created are NOT patented. If nature created them, then you have a prior use AND common 'knowledge' to the pre-existing systems.
If there is a process for synthesizing genes, fine patent it if there is something new about it.
Everybody here knows that Bill's major interest outside of 'world domination' is bio-tech stocks. What do you want to bet that he hopes that gene patenting is allowed?
The idea that Bill Gates could own a piece of me is the scariest thing I can think of.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
>When a patent is filed it usually means that if it were not, that knowledge would simply not exist at all.
That was certainly one of the ideas behind patents, along with the idea of disclosure so the knowledge ends up in the public domain after a bit.
These days, however, with more & more obvious things being patented, as well as found things like DNA, patents have become a way for any bozo to keep knowledge *out* of the public domain -- to hold an entire industry hostage.
No, this is most likely not about "synthesized genes" (is this really a used concept? Synthesized proteins makes sense to me, but synthesizing a gene seems like a strange concept.) but so called Expressed Sequence Tags (EST). These are short DNA sequences (in the range of 100-200 bases I believe) that are used to map the genome. They bind to positions on the genome that code for proteins (they are "expressed") and are simply a kind of marker. Notice also that an EST is a part of a gene, not a full gene.
EST are useful for detecting whether a gene is present and can therefore be used to piece together the big puzzle of DNA strings that the genome projects produce, but can also be used to detect a disease I presume (I don't fully understand why companies try to patent EST:s).
See this policy paper for an interesting view on the patent issue.
Lars
__
Reality or nothing.
I think a better analogy is with prospecting. A company can buy the rights to prospect an area and get first dibs on a gold ore within that area.
Some gene patenting seems reasonable to me, because they require a large investment in time, money and development in general, but there are certainly many cases that are downright trivial. The concern among many academic researchers is that the patent offices are giving away gold that rightfully belongs to humanity.
New species have, sort of, been in patent applications. I have heard of a case where a company tried to patent a compound found in a plant which would make a good ingredient for toothpaste. Indigenous people have chewed on these plants for generations... The patent was supposedly turned down. Anyone heard more of this story?
There is also a village in Italy where the locals have barely no heart problems. It turns out that they carry a mutated form of a protein that is very good at breaking down colesterol (sp?). This protein has been patented and is now developed to become a drug. It remains to be seen if the company is successful.
Lars
__
Reality or nothing.
I note with interest that the Slazenger Institute at Cambridge UK has published the first batch of sequenced DNA (Nr. 23) on the Net so everyone can have it. Are US researchers doing the same?
I presume you mean the Sanger Institute?
It was researchers from several institutes/universties, including US researchers involved in that feat. The foremost private initiative, Celera Genomics, have promised to donate humage genome data early this year. Many academics worry that they will not stand to their promise though. However, that is independent of the issue of patents.
Lars
__
Reality or nothing.
I don't think it's encrypted at all. God's just not very good at commenting his code.
God is a Real Programmer.
If I understand the difference between patents and trade secrets correctly, after a finite time, a patent passes to the public domain. Correct?
Furthermore, a patent does not prevent competitor research (refinement of the patented item or process), it only prevents the marketting of it and profitting from it.
Now, the patent term is what, 7 years?
In gene technology, with it's profound effects on humanity and biology everywhere, a 7 year proving-ground for a process is a Good Thing. If a single company does the testing, works out the kinks, and provides the benefit of the technology in a limited (by being a single source) way, while everyone else learns from their example/mistakes, then by the time the patent expires, the technology is more mature, and therefore safer.
It wasn't until the PC 'matured' that the clone market really took off. The standards were laid and defined first. We saw what tended to work, and what fell flat on it's face. Once 'this works' was established, everyone jumped in and found ways of doing it cheaply. If we took a similar path with genetics, then a single (probably huge) company will get a head start. Either because they can afford the up-front research, or because they buy out a small innovator (and their patent). A company such as this will be heavily scrutinized, and controlled by the government to a greater extent than a small, independent, Taiwanese gene-slicing clone maker. They will be held more accountable during the term of the patent, and the technology will be raised according to regulations, and not the profit driven free-market.
Of course, I could be totally off the mark, since Apple seems to have a stranglehold on it's products. Are they holding patents, or is more involved?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
...in which case, they have not patented the gene, "merely" processes relating to it.
I am uneasy about patenting processes relating to genes, as I am about patenting medicines, etc. (Yes, I understand the arguments for it, but I also understand the arguments against; I have yet to decide which outweighs the other.)
I am dead against patenting genes, or any part of them, that appear in living organisms. Ones created in a lab, possibly, but not naturally ocurring ones. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well try to patent grass, or sand. (And that's without even considering the ethical questions it would raise...)
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Who's to say that immortality is a good thing. Didn't you ever hear the queen song "Who Wants to Live Forever?" :)
Although it's OpenSource(tm), the human genome has a very long compile cycle. You can't just ./conceive && make. Would it be feasible to port the genome to Perl? I know it would run more slowly, but it should be sufficient for politicians and the like, and it would allow for true RAD (Rapid Adolescent Development). Humanity would also benefit from regular expressions and DBI (DNA-Based Intelligence).
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
most patents are useless (lacking utlity),
baseless (lacking evidence), simple (complex ?!)
what has happened ?
were they ever innovative, novel, and containing
utility ?
Funny you should mention this. Perl is part of the solution Celera uses in manipulating their genome data. HUGE text processing....
David Corbin
David Corbin Promote Freedom - American Liberty Foundation
Genes are already, and will be, protected in different ways, without needing to allow the actual patenting of a gene in a manner similar to a copyright.
Copyrights on the gene sequence will be valid, because genes are programs, they are creative works, or at least, the ones we create will be. If someone makes a gene that bears too much resemblence to yours you could sue them, much the same as if they took any written work, changed a few lines, and remarketed it. Some basic sequences will be common in all work, but so are words and phrases in written works. It's the order of these macro units that will be copyrightable.
Not only this, but with the trend in software patents, it'll probably be possible to patent some methods. For instance, producing endorphins to hide pain is a natural body process and shouldn't be patentable. Ditto with the ways the body produces endorphins. But if you had a way to produce endorphins artificials, with modified genes, your specific method would be patentable. A happy medium preventing scientific discovery about the human system from being locked away, yet rewarding the discovery of specific methods of interacting with that system.
You then go on to assert that without patents we'd be eating gourmet cornbread, but things like medication to cure Alzheimer's would never be found.
I would like to point out that patents are a fairly recent legal invention, in the scope of human history, and much innovation was done without them.
Patents are a delicate balance. Given that patents do give companies some guarantee of exclusivity, they do speed up development. But, take this to extremes. With unending patents, or patents with a 100 year period even, development would slow to a trickle because almost all inventions are based on older works, and if those works were off limits, even by inependant discovery, needless workarounds, or long waits would be the only way of bringing out new inventions.
At either end you have slowed developments, either by secrecy, or over-protection. Somewhere in the middle is the best balance. I don't think we can stick one number to this. One year of protection in the software industry is a full product lifetime, but twenty years is barely a product cycle in the airplane industry, where 777s were in development for ten or more years, and are expected to sell for 25 or more to recoup development costs. Should we use 17 years, or any other number, and stifle research in industries on either end of this, or base patent terms on a ongoing study of the field, to maintain a proper balance.
I personally suspect 3-5 years would be adequate protection in the pharmecutical industry, especially if the term had a limit on the number of years a drug could be in production and protected. Like an eight year term, or public-availability +2, to allow for testing and development, but still get generic drugs to market to allow for affordable disease fighting.
Well, then you are certainly qualified to comment on it, now aren't you.
Why wouldn't he be? The issue is what should be patentable, not thoughts about what the article says. You're just using something unrelated to attack him with. Ditto with your later comment about gambling (Though I do agree that gambling is exploitation of the stupid.)
DNA is not encrypted.
Perhaps not, as in cyphered, but it is encoded, which is a form of encryption. The idea is solid though, that DNA is instructions for the cells that make up our bodies, but we don't have a clue of how it does that.
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge.
Sure, patents make the process public, but they don't make it available until the patent ends. And given the trend in copyrights, patent terms could end up getting longer.
It'd suck if the cure for Alzheimers (to use a common example) was based on a patent help by a bankrupt company, and unavailable because its creditors, upon hearing of potential money, held up the bankruptcy litigation for years. It could happen. It has happened before with lesser technologies.
Patents have a purpose, but they aren't universally applicable, or appropriate in the same form for all markets. Why is the same patent term that is used in the slowly-innovating auto industry also appropriate in the rapidly advancing drug industry? You could argue it should be longer or shorter, but you can't think both are similar enough that the same term is completely appropriate.
Wasn't that your Founding Fathers? Or something. RMS wasn't exactly the first to point it out, I thought that was the whole reason it existed, and since that's the case, credit should go to them, not He Who Should Be Worshipped (ISPHO).
*waits for '-1 flamebait'*
ISPHO - In Some People's Humble Opinion
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
'can company's patent genes that exist in all of us?'
No, but perhaps *companies* can patent genes that exist in all of us! People, apostrophes are used when the indication of possession is desired, or to indicate a contraction, as in 'This company's main product is Linux'. It may be a relatively small issue (especially when compared to patents on genes), but please, let's (a contraction!) not bastardize the English language unless truly necessary!
Is imposible for me to make heads or tails of.
I think andover should take some of ther much-buckos and pay a patent lawyer to read over this and tell us what it actualy means...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
We'll just patent the X chromosome.
:P
Or, maybe I should just patent the X chromosome and force everyone to pay me royaltys. twice as much from the woman
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That doesn't make sense at all. There is no differentiation between "content" and "code" in DNA.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I guess I should apologies for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive. :)
Yes, that's the general Idea I've been trying to get across. At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you're going.
You can't apply rationality to nothing and end up with the best course of action, you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind. In this case, creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world).
I don't think that maximum corporate profits are a valid goal, in this field.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Ever heard of public institutions like universities I'm attending a university right now, as a matter of fact. One of the few with a genetics major. There spending most of there money researching corn DNA.
:P, I've only read Neromancer though).But that has more to do with the media, IMO then anything with genetics. Think About it, in Virtual Light, DJ Shapely's DNA was harvested by a Corporation to cure AIDS, not a university.
Think about the computer industry. Do you really think that all of the advancements that we have today would be here if we relied solely on Universities? 90% of the pure science aspects even come from corporations. IBM, Xerox, independent think-tanks are the innovators, not the EE departments of major universities (other then MIT, maybe)
The same is rapidly becoming true of the genetics industry. Sure, we could ban genetic patents, and let Universities do all the work, but I guaranty you not anywhere near as much work would be getting done.
Where exactly do you think the drugs that suppress HIV come from? I'll give you a hint it wasn't universities. Oh, and all those anti-viral agents are patented, btw. Do you think the companies that made them would have if they hadn't been able to make money?
as for Gibson's world, are you talking about the sprawl series, or the last three (the bridge series?)
I think he's dead on as far as the new books go, unfortunately (I'd say his old books are just to weird to use as predictions
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion, which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
:P
Yes, that's exactly what I think. The best thing is to find a balance between the necessary capital incentive for development, and the cost of not allowing the ideas to go free.
Two possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis, or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs.
It's also important to remember that 3rd world countries can simply choose to ignore our patent claims. This is what South Africa (though not a 3rd world country, per se) Is doing with HIV suppressors.
The best solution I think is to try and tweak the situation we have until its optimal. Perhaps that's what this bill/law/whatever is trying to do, perhaps not. Of course, none of us can tell, because its written in some of the most obtuse legal-ees I've ever seen
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Speaking of software, do you honestly think that people can't innovate and make money in software without patenting their ideas?
No, I don't. But then I wasn't speaking of software; I was speaking of computer hardware. And no, I don't think that the pace would have been anywhere near what it has been if there were no computer hardware patents.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
However if this "immortality" pill is not invented in our lifetime because "Celera" is keeping the information as proprietary Corporate Trade Secrets, then that, my friend, is nothing less than a CRIME against humanity!
On the other hand, why would anyone try to invent and sell an immortality pill if they couldn't patent it and sell it? I mean, sure they would get to live forever, but they could just keep the information to themselves and a few billionaires who he can give and watch over carefully so that they do not reverse engineer it...
Do you think that would be a better situation? I don't. And that's what I said.
You seem to be saying two things. That A) There should be no patents on human DNA, and B) that medical technology should advance as quickly as possible. However you show no evidence that the two are linked in anyway. In fact I would say that the opposite were true patents lead to faster scientific research. I mean, after all what motivation is there to do this research if there's no money it in? I think you need to look at this more carefully.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I'm not saying that there should be no regulations; I'm merely saying that there should patents as well. most of the people in the world are motivated by money. Corporations crated the Anti-viral agents used to suppress HIV. I doubt that those corporations would have spent the money necessary to develop those drugs if they didn't think they'd be able to get that money back. Sure, we might have seen those drugs come out of University labs, decades from now... But I'm not willing to sacrifice millions of human lives to placate your knee-jerk reaction.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I have to think that the idea of patenting DNA is not necessarily the terrible idea that everyone makes it out to be. I agree that things like patenting the human genome is ludicrous, but we have to remember that most of us don't really understand how the Genetic field works. What we have to ask is how these changes will affect scientific research.
At first glance it may seem that any patents in the genetic field are bad for it, after all if one scientist can't build off what someone else has done, how can science move forward? But I don't believe that this is necessarily true, for instance would current genetic research get as much funding as it currently is no patents were granted at all? In my opinion it wouldn't. What's the point of "liberating" a scientific field if no one is paying for research?
Like many slashdot readers I don't really understand exactly how genetic patenting works. I'm pretty sure that as of now, there are almost no new genes being developed, only discoveries as to the effects of genes commonly found in nature. I've heard some of you say that patenting a "discovery" is against the idea of patents, but I don't think that definition holds to the Genetic industry anymore then it does to the pharmaceuticals industry. I mean, how can any new drug not be just a discovery of the effects of some certain compound on the human body.
I'm not saying that we should allow any kind of genetic patent, but at the same time I think that the idea of genetic patents is not completely without merit. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I like many of us not in the genetics field are not really qualified to say where that line should be drawn (or even where it would be possible to draw a line)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I must admit first of all that I didn't actually read the article.
Well, then you are certainly qualified to comment on it, now aren't you.
Anyways, my feelings are strong on this subject. Flat out, companies should NOT be able to patent our DNA. DNA is should be part of the public domain. God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption.
DNA is not encrypted. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a genetic scientist, and I don't really understand exactly what it is that we are trying to patent. But I will agree that I don't think that companies should be allowed to patent genetic pattern that appears to be in a large number of humans already.
It is not something that we as a species can afford to allow to be locked away as Corporate Trade Secrets. Some day, the very existence of the species may depend upon this knowledge being as common and easily available as a Gideon Bible.
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge. The whole idea behind patents is to expand human knowledge by making it easier for a company to have a limited time monopoly on there discovery of invention, as opposed to trying to keep it trade secret.
Play a few hands of blackjack at www.GreatWorldCasino.com and let me know what you think of my Java Servlets!
Thank you for creating technology the sole purpose of witch is to cheat money from the stupid, and then having the audacity to claim the moral high ground.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
IIRC, patents do cover discoveries. Think about it though, if you couldn't patent discoveries how could anyone patent conventional drugs? They only consist of common chemicals, so there 'invention' is only the act of discovering there positive effect on the body (or there ability to get you high :P )
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents.
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly. When it comes to biotech, the faster advances are made, the more human lives are saved. If we have to wait 100 year, or even 25 for a cure that would have come about that many more hundreds of thousands of people will have to suffer through Alzheimer's disease.
I think we need to be pragmatic about this. What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Certainly some research would be done in genetics, but anywhere near the current rate without patents. By slowing down the research system, you would literally be killing people. I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Let me ask you something.
Would you prefer it if pharmaceutical companies did not patent there discoveries, instead holding them as trade secret? If that were the case then the information would never become a part of human knowledge.
I don't think its to unreasonable to allow a company, if it finances its own research to claim genetic patents, however I do draw the line at patenting DNA witch is a majority of human beings. When a patent is filed it usually means that if it were not, that knowledge would simply not exist at all.
The genetic industry, much like the computer industry in past few decades is rapidly becoming a market driven system, meaning that most of the research and development in the field is going to be done by corporations rather universities. If a corporation cannot gain a competitive advantage by having spending the money to research, then it will not do research at all.
Rather then cause the genetic field to grow, it would do more to retard it. Imagine if no computer companies were allowed to gain patents. Do you honestly think that we would get any good new technology if we had to wait for it to come out of a university? We'd probably all still be using 5micron CPUs.
Under current law, a patent doesn't last forever, about 17 years (or 29 for a drug, I'm not sure what would apply here), I'd be willing to be that in a zero-intellectual property environment we probably wouldn't see the advance for at least that long
I think that its best for us to consider what will be the best course of action for the advancement of science, and the human race as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on what we believe to be the 'moral' course of action.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Yes the situation you describe could happen, but let me propose another one
The patenting of genetic information is banned. Company X was about to start research on the DNA that does cause Alzheimer's. This research, if done, will result in a potential cure, however there projected costs for the project are $300 million dollars. Now, were they to do this research under your new proposed guidelines they wouldn't make any more money then the companies that didn't spend all that money, so they decide to scrap the idea, and decide to start researching new kinds of tastier corn.
Under the current situation, what you describe is possible, one company for about 17 years will be the only company that will be able to cure Alzheimer's disease. However, I believe this would be preferable to having no cure for Alzheimer's at all don't you?
You're not morally right if you not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Well, they won't be patening the gene itself, however the process by which it is created.
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
That's it, I'm patenting evolution!
(Or I'm patenting God, if you happen to be of that belief. Whatever, please no religious comments stemming from this)
Nobody else will be allowed to evolve, and any process that mimics natural selection (i.e. market economies) will all have to pay massive licensing fees.
---sig---
Patenting is supposed to be for original inventions, correct? No prior art is supposed to exist, etc. Well, I've got a few million years of prior art going into this creation I call my body, so I'm not buying the idea of patenting any of it (save my irresistible charm ;) ). Now that it's apparently okay to patent discoveries instead of inventions, I'm claiming fire, how about you?
---sig---
I don't know if anyone has either, but I do know that companies are thinking about this very thing. I have a colaborator at a large US biotech firm. We are actually working on something totally unrelated to their work, but the corporate lawyers have told him that he can't send my a set of primers he designed. He has apparently given them to several people already, and if he gives them to anyone else, he (or his employer) apparently looses some sort of intelectual property rights to them. It turns out I probably won't need them, but this is already something of an issue...
So. I've done some basic genetics stuff, including just enough "lab" work to say I've messed around with (safe) e. coli to splice in a simple resistance gene (to a specific antibiotic). It looks like the issue here isn't patenting large segments of the genome, but small ones. Not a matter of patenting sequences that have effects (allele-level), but sequences that are used as tools to get at these larger, more complicated parts.
At a certain level, these are also "naturally occurring"; they probably *do* exist in some form in organisms that are heavily resistant to genetic damage (as tools to recover from it). However, they really are tools in the circumstances the patent office is seeing them under. I hesitate to think of the mess if a human gene is brought up for patent as a tool.
I think that this is a step in the right direction (I fit in, as do most here, I would guess, with the purists who don't like the idea of patenting genes much). I hope there is a long hard look taken at each proposed genetic patent, and that there is a relaxing of the rules for the exceptions mentioned at the end of the article.
I think the biggest problem (and this has been noted repeatedly with respect to software as well) is that common law and precedents are being applied to situations never dreamed of, or at least taken into account, when they were derived.
The patenting of genes (or the process thereof) is not such a great idea. We already live in a semi-luddite world where the potential social backlash of even genetically modified crop is severe. The patenting of genes or such a process will make the information available publicly - Patents are NOT trade secrets. This may lead to a black clinic market where parents wishing to give their children that slight edge go. We've all read Gibson - "The black clinics of Chiba finds other uses for such technology".
Once something has been invented, and proven to be done, it cannot be un-invanted - that is not that nature of inventions. Patenting of genes and processing thereof will spurn innovation, but will they really be controlled by this absurd notion of the Patent?
.my 2p
Washington DC, January 13 (AP)
Today, the USPTO announced new guidelines for the genetic qualifications of new application hirings. Under the new guidelines, DNA samples of all prospective USPTO-bureaucrat applicants will be submitted and examined to exclude all Neanderthals and proto-simians. Todd Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, was quoted as saying: "Internal audits of personnel revealed a disturbing trend: too many employees are of subhuman intelligence. We hope these new guidelines will turn around our beleaguered agency."
I can dream, can't I?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I guess I don't understand why a company would be able to patent a gene in the first place. I can understand patenting algorithms, since they are a process that was invented by someone, but the genes which are present aren't being invented by these companies, they were evolved over millions of years.
\begin{weak analogy}
What if I were to find a new species. This species exists naturally in the world. Can I patent it? What does this even mean? Is that species not allowed to reproduce without the companies permission? Is no one else allowed to use the species without the companies permission?
It seems to me that this is like the patenting of genes. It makes no sense either.
\end{weak analogy}
Can anyone help me here?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This is an issue I feel strongly about. I think patents on genes are a much greater threat than those on software, by far. If I'd been in Seattle for the WTO protest, you could have seen me marching with my "No Gene Patents" sign.
Wether you believe in God or evolution, it seems obvious to me that patents should not be allowed for something which already exists. It's the ultimate "prior art". Build a gene from scratch, and maybe you'll have a case, but until then, I think it is clear that these patents should be opposed at all cost
Right now there is a race between public & private entities to map the genome, and the private entities are winning.
More disturbing, though, the private entity is using the public database to double check it's work, giving it a double head start. The private group has filed thousands upon thousands of patent applications. This leads to the essential question: If our DNA is patented, is human reproduction patent infringement?
They can patent my DNA when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
But seriously, this measure isn't really enough. It's beyond me how you can patent DNA at all, but all this article means is that the PTO will not allow researchers to patent every single sequence they map in case it might coincidentally be important; they will have to prove that they can "do something" with it. I can understand patenting drugs or medical procedures BASED on these discoveries, but patenting the genes themselves is a lot like patenting algorithms; patenting the "laws of nature", which are discoveries, not inventions, and which confer unnatural monopolies that restrain the whole of human knowledge.
Biotech industries depend heavily on an unhealthy confluence of universities and corporate R&D, and this is just the most patently [sic] ridiculous extreme. The government has no cause sanctioning it. Progress [in the best 19th century sense] suffers from the relationship, and this cuts against the original purpose of patents.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
The second objection I have to this is much stronger. Basic scientific research can only evolve if it occurs in an open source environment, where discoveries are shared almost as soon as they are made. This happens necessarily in university environments, and is the primary reason for the research conferences that scientists are always running around to attend. We publish, we share data, we examine each other's grants, and we share reagents. Our work is validated when--and only when--someone else replicates it. Lewis Thomas made a very powerful argument for this in one of his arguments: we can only evolve if we share with each other. Although I'm not a CS person, my feeling is that open source software operates the same way.
In the field of life sciences--which is really a very young science--the sequencing of the human genome is a giant step, and will represent a gigantic change in every subset of the field. But here comes Ventner's company, announcing that they plan to finish the sequence before the NIH group (and what
I have no problem with someone patenting a novel process, like PCR, because that's the way biotech needs to work, and that's how patents were meant to be used. But with
If those idiots grant patents for mouse algorythims and windowing they will grant a patent for anything with a technical word in it.
No, they should not do this and in the case of DNA, that "first use" issue is definately against the "discoverer" since the person with the DNA is already using it.
But what the hell, the patent examiners don't pay attention to any of the other rules for granting patents, so it is another case that has to be needlessly settled in court.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Yes, for NEW or ALTERED genes, but for existing natural genes pantenting is rubbish.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
It's easy enough for any company to use high-throughput computerized methods to screen, sequence, and roughly characterize genes (based on commonly known patterns i.e. a protein folding pattern) and/or homology to recognized genes of other species. Should they be awarded a patent based on this skimpy information alone? Such patents can stifle research into further understanding of a particular gene...after all, why research a gene or its transcripted product when some company owns the patent to it, and any potential benefits would have to be shared or controlled by them? Another issue mentioned were ESTs(expressed sequence tags)-small sequences of mRNA reverse-transcribed and matched to its corresponding genome location. The article indicated patents have been awarded based on EST information alone (which doesn't cover the complete sequence nor other factors such regulatory elements), which is scary because any startup can claim ownership to thousands of genes using ESTs, and not know a damn thing about the gene.
But isn't the purpose of the Doomsday machine lost if you keep it a secret!
Just try writing the same code for two employers three years apart and having the first employer sue you for copyright infringement. Obviously any code you write in future is going to be "similar" to code you have written in the past but does that make it a "derived" work? Plenty of times the law will say yes.. so your previous employers own a piece of your brain. Frankly, you can hold a patent on my middle toe but keep away from my mind man.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Was this document deliberately written to be obtuse, or did it just come out that way? :o
:\
There seems to be a real focus on procedural correctness without much thought to the actual issue.
I spoke to a woman who works at the MIT patent office a couple of months ago. She was bitching about how on fridays, the DNA people drop of the list of all the genes that had been sequenced that week, to be patented.
So as far as I understood what she said, that is exactly what they are doing. Hopefully, it'll never hold up in court. After all, the legal system has proven itself to be a sagacious interpreter of high-tech law.
I think this is one of the most important issues of the upcoming years - can company's patent genes that exist in all of us?
Well, they won't be patening the gene itself, however the process by which it is created.
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
Much like IBM's patents on copper chips. They patented their process, which at the time, was the only process, of producing copper chips. They couldn't patent the use of copper in chips, that would be absurd. Thus people frantically started trying to create copper chips in altered ways.
But heres a thought: Imagine the lawsuits
Man sues company for stealing his arm.
*grin*
Well, considering that we've been around for 10s of thousands of years, I'd say that most genetic info is 'prior art'. Maybe brand spankin new genes that do absurd stuff could be patented, but definatly not things already around - that includes crossing the genetic material of one organism with another.
IANAGS (I Am Not A Genetic Scientist), but:
The idea of "prior art" in this case may be a little different to what we are used to seeing. True, our genetic structures do "already exist", but the subject of the patent may actually claim something else, such as a method for isolating a gene, modifying it, identifying it, adding it to an organism to produce a certain outcome, and so on.
OF COURSE, the ethical considerations of patenting a genetic sequence are a completely different matter!
Why is the universe here? -Well, where else would it be?
I think gene patenting would be a mistake, but not really threatening. Here is why:
/. and see all the people that know so much more than I do, and it depresses me. On days like this I go out and have a few beers mith my buddies wo became MCSE's and I feel much better.
Genetic Assholes R Us patent's the genes for black hair and blue eyes.
You/your wife gets pregnant with a kid having those genes, can they make you give the genes up?
No.. not with out taking your kid, every cell in both parents bodies (and some of the grandparents too). Is this feasable? NO. What is feasible is some moron saying I want a kid that looks just like "blah blah blah" they do it and yay it works. Does it mean anything not really.. just there is some kid running around that is almost identical to "blah blah blah".
The worst parts hurt will be if company x patents a gene and company y needs to use it for cancer research and cant without massive fees, etc. Then company x makes the new cancer treatment and gets all the money/credit when company did all hte legwork pointing to that gene.
Sometimes I go to work or look at
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
I should try to patent my genes before some one tries to clone my double helix and make another john :-0 Scary stuff. I wonder if I do have patent rights to my genes....
Reread the analysis. The guidelines are mainly intended to address expressed sequence tags, or ESTs. These are fairly small bits of DNA which let you quickly identify areas of the genome. To use a somewhat-sloppy analogy, they're like regexps for the genome.
Now, imagine that I spend a few months compiling a whole bunch of useful regexps. I think I'd be within my rights to want to profit from all that work. Now, I can't patent a regexp, because in most cases it falls under obviousness. However, DNA tags are a lot less obvious, and therefore require significant effort to find and construct. Therefore, some companies claim they should be able to patent the ones they discover so that they can make money selling reagents to biologists.
ESTs, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be considered genes. They may code for a few amino acids, but as far as I know none of them codes anything near a complete enzyme.
Also, in response to the "they'll patent the cure for Alzheimer's" and "they'll patent the diabetes gene" worries: these are multifactorial diseases. It's not just one gene at the heart of them. Furthermore, it's not just one mutation causing all the cases. There are both genetic and environmental triggering factors.
Now, it's certainly true that a company might get a patent on a given kind of gene therapy or a "healing" DNA sequence that they've constructed. IMHO, this is fair. Such a sequence would be essentially equivalent to a drug, and anyone who figures out a cure for a disease deserves some profit.
Nobody is going to patent your genes and then sue you for infringement-through-living. Or rather, they might do that, but there's no way a court will even grant them the preliminary injunction, let alone damages. (If you are a genetically-engineered perfect child using "upgraded" genes that the company invented, *then* you might be in trouble.) As far as medical therapies go, gene patents are probably going to just perpetuate the system of drug patents.
Finally, a semi-offtopic response to someone who said that the genome is open-source but encrypted: I don't think it's encrypted at all. God's just not very good at commenting his code.
Alik
Genes are a natural resource. They are a natural resource for building life. Humans did not invent them, so how can a human have a right to patent it?
Is a company going to actually claim they INVENTED a gene? Are they going to charge parents to have kids because they are violating this companies patent?
The patent laws in this country need to be rewritten entirely if they can get away with this.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The outcry worked -- leaders in Papua New Guinea were eventually awarded some kind of settlement -- but in many cases this kind of genetic exploitation goes unfettered. It's bad enough the way the western world takes economic advantage of small, relatively defenseless populations; but to patent and profit from their sole inalienable possession -- their bloodline -- is unconscionable.
I haven't kept up with HUGO's track record very closely since then -- I had heard that they made some improvements in their policies -- but I wonder if other /. readers have knowledge or semi-informed opinions on the matter?
Note: I don't oppose the collection of various genetic samples for research purposes, or even the idea behind HUGO -- it's a matter of the benefit being primarily to the culture that provided the genes and to the advancement of science in general, rather than the economic benefit of a few unethical corporations.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
I think the ridiculous patents we've been seeing lately are tell-tale signs of the Judicial Branch's inability to impose any sort of sound restraints in patent law, among other things.
First, Harley patented the sound of their motorcycles. I laughed when I heard that - I mused that that would never hold up.. but it did.
The thought of private companies holding patents in genetic science scares the shit out of me. Talk about big brother.
But the thought of the US government having control over genetics research and policies scares me even more. Especially since the US can't and shouldn't dictate what the rest of the world does, but will most likely try to.
I guess my response is that forbidden fruit doesn't stay forbidden very long. What is sacred to one man may not be to another. I believe it is only a matter of time before all moral concerns regarding genetic engineering, unresolved and ultimately unsolvable as they are, are simply bypassed. That scares me too.
But so did Y2K, and we're still here.
-John
Now the corporations that funded their work (If that was the case) ... they may have been in it for the profit. How 'bout we give all the Corporate Welfare money to "Open Source" people so the discoveries benefit all people and not just the priveledged elite.
When someone uses the argument "Innovation won't happen without compensation" has a poor view of the human race. We're better than that
I don't believe that anyone's going to even try to patent a gene. It simply can't be done. They can only patent processes. Therefore, all that companies are going to be patenting is certain types of processes involving the knowledge gained from sequencing the human genome. Even if companies like Celera Genomics sequence the genome well before the HGP, they're still going to have to develop novel and nonobvious processes which make use of their sequencing, which could take years. So if someone wants to prevent such patents, they should start trolling the HGP data and establishing some prior art.
For all the complaining about stupid kneejerk bullshit in other parts of America and the media, we sure do a lot of it here. Bleh.
I think you've confused a couple of points.
1) If Company X sequences the genes that cause Alzheimer's. Even if they can't patent it, they're under no obligation to share that information. This give's them a headstart in developing a treatment. If another company wants to develop a treatment, let them spend their own money, or wait for the HGP.
2) Assuming they develop a cure, the cure is still patentable, just like conventional medications, but still allows other companies to develop alternate treatments.
this is not a sig.
// TODO: fix sig
This is a really big one, that will shape the future of genetic engineering. The Cohen-Boyer patent from UCSF/Stanford 18 years ago was worth billions as it described the process by which genes could be introduced into existing organisms. That became an enormous process in molecular biology that led Genetech to its wealth.
If intellectual property protection is not given to those who find new genes, then HUGE amounts of money will not be spent investigating the potential of existing human genes to cure existing pathologies. Think about that for a second. This could keep some company from curing hemophilia, or dystonia, or schizophrenia, all of which have known contributions from at least one gene. The research for this work is being driven by industry. Without intellectual property protection, it would cease to exist. The companies exist to profit, not to make you feel better. There are not enough truly altruistic sources of research funding to make this work otherwise as things sit today.
To me that is the real issue. Do we give companies a reason to exploit the genome for potential human benefit or not ?
I took a course on Biotechnology last year, and unless somthing has changed since that time, here's what's screwy about patenting genes.
Normaly you patent somthing for a particular use. Genetic patents are, effectivly speaking, on the genes themselves rather than a use to which a gene is put. When Celera hoped to get a few thousand patents by completing the Human Genome Project before the various government agencies involved it wasn't saying "we'll use this gene we discovered to cure alzheimers and patent the cure" they just said "we'll patent a bunch of genes and charge those people who want to use them".
You should be able to patent a process to build a log cabin. You shoudn't be able to discover a pine tree and patent 'cutting down a pine tree with a chainsaw'.
There should be enough money in use patents to satisfy corporate interests. And if a company can't make money off of use patents, then they don't deserve to make moeny.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Losec's patent is about to run out, which presents the (public) health insuracne with this delicate problem:
a) Losec sales generate a lot of tax money, used for example on health insurance.
b) 'Cloned' drugs are a lot cheaper, making the same tax money last longer.
So the same government tries to:
a) Support Astra fighting 'drug-piracy' and promoting the original
b) Persuade doctors to perscribe clones instead of the original to save money.
Go figure...
Now I have some friends doing medical research. They all agree: Patents are what keeps the medical research going. There are many years of research and testing behind a succesful drug. And there are many failed projects for every successful one too.
It would be very nice with an "open source medical research movement" instead of the greedy corporate approach, but how many of you would like to beta test an aids vaccine? Or experiment with alzheimer drugs on your grandmother?
Genome/Medical patents are ethically tricky.
Software patents are legally tricky.
Please do not confuse the two!
All opinions are my own - until criticized
A lot of you people owe me money!
One viagra in the morning before work; I just know I'm gonna be screwed
Think twice; type once.
Patents cover processes that can be expressed as instructions. If someone says a device is patented this actually means the process of creating that device is patented.
Think of this as patenting a function.
- Certain genes and
- a target genetic sequence
are the inputs. You can't patent the inputs: patent law covers the *way* you bring them together. For Example: (cat flames>/dev/null)If I take the RTFM gene from Linus Torvalds, and I point out the spot where I can splice the gene into anyone's DNA then I *may* be able to patent the process of making you all RTFM. I would NOT have a patent on your genes (before or after you get a clue) or the RTFM gene sequence itself.--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Noone thinks that you should have to pay royalties to a company for having black hair. However if a company spends millions of dollars researching a gene and figuring out what it does (and yes, it takes that much) then they have a right to make that money back. Noone will develop a treatment or product (like a cancer cure) based on that unless they publish, and they have no reason to publish unless they get a royalty. The choice isn't cheap treatment or expensive treatment, it's no treatment or expensive treatment.
...what the patent, who they hold over the barrel or how much money they make at the expense of others...
If they find a cure for crohn's disease from this, Ill kiss all of their collective asses
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
As RMS and others have so often said, the purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation, not to make inventors/discoverers rich. If one gene causes Alzheimer's, how do you claim a patent on that knowledge will induce others to find "alternate" ways of treating it? More importantly, why should it? It's like someone patenting the administration of drugs in pill form to a sick patient. What am I supposed to do if I don't have any pills, stick some leeches on my head and hope my migraine goes away? (Migraines make you want to roll over and die...)
The idiocy, greed, and outright contempt for human decency and welfare disgusts me more than my acid keyboard can relate.
Anyway, it might not be a bad idea to take active steps towards ensuring that something like this cannot happen. Look at the GPL. It guarantees that no rights are taken away from the user by the software it accompanies. So should we, the "users" of our own bodies (and therefore genes) not be denied any rights to them, especially not if such knowledge can raise the quality of life for all people on earth! I say the human genome should be copylefted.
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
In some countrys I believe that it is impossible to pattent a alogrythum and since DNA is a alogrythum to create life it could be argued that it is impossible to pattent DNA at all (in some countrys at least).
- I dont know how or if alogrythum is a correct spelling and I dont care
My understanding of the new regulations is that DNA sequences can be part of a patented process only if the process has significant usefulness. So, if I clone a novel gene which may do something interesting or may not, I can't write a patent application because I can't say that anything that I might do with this has significant usefulness. At least, I can't describe any kind of process (aside from more research) that I know will be of use. However, if I clone a disease that predisposes people to Alzheimer's disease, I might patent that as part of a diagnostic test for determining whether someone is likely to get Alzheimer's. I'm not sure how far this is allowed to extend to other applications one might use the DNA sequence of an Alzheimer's gene for (and I'm not sure the PTO has any idea either, until lawsuits are brought and settled over the matter).
In any event, it sounds like the right idea: reward people for substantive work towards something really useful, while keeping people from getting rich simply because they were the first ones to explicitly describe something that they had no clue how to use. But the devil is in the details, as they say, so we may well see that it is still all messed up. Especially since "substantive" is such a subjective term.
Putting a patent on the human genome is obviously ridiculous, but as someone pointed out, the patenting will most likely occur on genes created/modified as opposed to exisiting genes. The question here should be, do we really want science to create new genes ? We are already capable of creating life (supposedly). Look at the mess we've made with the atom - the first thing that man will do with genetic science (if it's not already being done) is to use it for warfare. In my opinion the patent is a moot point, it would be far better to be discussing the consequences of messing with something we don't fully understand. In the final analysis, however, I guess 12 foot basketball players and pianists with seven fingers on each hand will happen regardless. Mankind is the fool.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
miskam evets
Well, then you are certainly qualified to comment on it, now aren't you.
Well, that doesn't stop around 90% of the posters on slashdot either.
God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption.
This statement was obviously not meant to be taken seriously.
#1 - There is no God.
#2 - If there was a God, he is definitely a closed-source type of guy and probably would hang out with the Bill Gates of the world. "See that tree of knowledge." God said. "Do not eat the Apple on it!" Yeah Right!
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge. The whole idea behind patents is to expand human knowledge by making it easier for a company to have a limited time monopoly on there discovery of invention, as opposed to trying to keep it trade secret.
Guess what, the company doing this privately is patenting 1000s of things when they had agreed to patent only 100s; they are not sharing any of their research with any public institutions; and it is entirely possible that there are many things they discover about that human genome that they don't patent, but keep privately as "Trade Secrets".
Thank you for creating technology the sole purpose of witch is to cheat money from the stupid, and then having the audacity to claim the moral high ground.
If you clicked on that site you would see:
#1 - No banner ads or other advertising site
#2 - That it is not a real casino, but rather a "for fun" casino
#3 - That it is a hobby site that I work on for fun.
#4 - That even if it was a "real" casino that allowed "real" wagers, I don't see how that makes a damn bit of difference in regards to my comment. I do not take a moral high ground; I am not the least bit religious and I hate religious hypocrisy and corporate darwinism equally.
When I'm talking about "humanity" I'm really talking about 'me' personally :)
"I don't wanna die! I don't wanna die!"
What famous video game does that quote come from?br>
The particular company I was referring to was "Celera", but the name was eluding me at the time I was writing that response. They are the ones closest to breaking down the entire genome.
Yes, what I was indirectly saying in the response was that perhaps it is bad that the company patents the stuff, but worse if the company withholds stuff to the public. There's no reason they can't recoup their investment by simply being the first to develop whatever inventions/products/breakthroughs naturally come out of this new information.
Say for instance if some company develops out of this a product which allows humans to live forever, then sure that company should be able to patent that product.
However if this "immortality" pill is not invented in our lifetime because "Celera" is keeping the information as proprietary Corporate Trade Secrets, then that, my friend, is nothing less than a CRIME against humanity!
I must admit first of all that I didn't actually read the article. I looked at it, but then decided that I didn't quit law school for nothing :) Anyways, my feelings are strong on this subject. Flat out, companies should NOT be able to patent our DNA. DNA is should be part of the public domain. God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption. The human gonome project will have a profound affect on mankind. It is not something that we as a species can afford to allow to be locked away as Corporate Trade Secrets. Some day, the very existence of the species may depend upon this knowledge being as common and easily available as a Gideon Bible.
Much like GPL prevents people from selling the kernel source code.
"... possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis.."
To my mind that would take an inordinate amount of bureaucracy. Even if you were only referring to genetic patents, with the amount of patent applications for genes which are going through (over a month ago Celera filed an application for patents on 5600 potentially useful genes) there would have to be a significant extra price tag attached.
"...or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs..."
I think that you would be sacrificing innovation for more effective use of existing treatments. This might well be a worthwhile trade off, as long as the powers to regulate the prices of the drugs are within reasonable limits, because otherwise you make "necessary drugs" unprofitable to research, which would be counter-productive in the extreme.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
They didn't write the code on the DNA, they can't patent it.
...ABCDEFGHIJ... to BCDGJ, somehow you have to get rid of ABDEFHI, and then stick the remaining 3 pieces back together in the correct order. Usually, it's all or nothing, meaning that if you just get BCDG or if you leave F in and have BCDFG, the protein doesn't work. The whole alphabet is your natural DNA, which nobody _wants_ to patent because everybody's got some already. The garbage is garbage. The BCDGJ chunk is called a cDNA. Getting from the whole gmish to the cDNA is the hard part. The technique is pretty much the same no matter who's applying it. And it can and does take years from start to finish.
Nobody #WROTE# the DNA code. it's just there, like the ocean and the stars. The argument about Kansas school board vs. rational minds everywhere is not the issue- don't try to drag us into that. Extant patents on genes have been granted to cover cDNA clones, which are not the same thing at all as the DNA in your precious cells, which may or may not be the work of "Someone Else."
Before I get into the case tho, I want to drop some knowledge on what the process actually involves, and what the patent physically covers. IMHO most people making a stink about the immorality of patenting human genes wouldn't know DNA if it bit them on the ear. The patents issued so far are not the same, base for base, as the DNA in your cells and mine. Some poor molecular biologist (who is most likely white or asian, female, and under 40) spends her days playing with chemistry sets and manipulating E.Coli bacteria, hoping to find the right clone.
Some basic genetics: the DNA in your cells is wound into chromosomes, big lumpy superhelices of antiparallel molecules. If you start at one end and read thru to the other end, some of the DNA codes for proteins and some is not-quite-random junk. Think of the alphabet written from left to right on the page: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYANDZ. All the letters which can be written entirely with straight lines represent garbage...that leaves us with BCDGJOPQRSU. Now, if B was a gene, and C was a gene, and D, we wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately, the situation is that BCDGJ is a gene, and OP is a gene, and QRSU is a gene... this makes copying the sequence from a real cell to an artificial construct difficult because to get from
What Jenny lab rat ends up with is a piece of circular DNA that bears only a faint resemblence to the material she started with. This DNA lives inside a bacteria, and would be immediately destroyed by evolutionary defense mechanisms if it was inserted into your body.
This physical piece of cDNA is what is being patented.
The issue is that the bioscience industry is slow, unlike the computer industry. It might take years worth of work, start to finish, to clone a single meaningful gene and make sure you have the right thing at the end. And that's once you know what you're looking for and where to start.
Building a functional cDNA represents years of work, with no return on investment. And it's useless as a profit-making instrument, unless it can be sold. But since it is packaged in a bacteria, anyone who purchases the cDNA can effictively begin producing and selling identical copies immediatley with a minimal investment-all you would really need is some sugar water and a bucket. Licensing is the only way to prevent this kind of misappropriation. The patenting of cDNA's is to protect Jenny's invested time and her company's invested spending for wages and materials.
Human genes will not be patented in situ, not because it's not ethical (when has that ever stopped anyone?) but because it's not particularly useful. cDNA's are patented because they're hard to build, they have the potential to be very useful, and they're easy to copy.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
The purpose of all research is not profit for companies.
Not all, but much research is done to make a profit. And this doesn't apply only to the US (or even to only North America). Companies in Europe, Australia, Asia, and elsewhere also likely do research in this and many other fields.
It's not all about the money...
Ohhh, but it is. Even Universities do research for money. That's why every (nearly every??) has a department which is responsible for so called intellectual property. They need that money to continue operating (otherwise, student tuition would rise!!LOL). Admitedly, the Universities need the money to continue operating so that they can do more research, but make no mistake about it: the University is there for economic, and not only social reasons as many people think.
most power should always be in the hands of democratically elected people.
Have you taken a close look at the democratically elected people (ESPECIALLY in the US) lately? First, most are so technologically inept that they are the last group who should be making decisions about technological issues. And second, they are nearly all so corrupt (remember, they all need campaign contributions) that What Is Right and What Should Be Done really don't matter anyways. Until the system is repaired (has democracy ever actually been done properly??), the rich (organizations more than people) will continue to dictate policy. Again, there's that money thing...
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Also, sometimes it would be better to publically fund research
Much research is publicly funded. However, the companies that get the funding are often those that made the largest campaign contributions during the preceding elections.
I'm not the most knowledgable person on the subject of genes in the universe, but it seems to me that this article is not actually talking about patenting genes that necessarily occur in humans. It's just talking about granting patents to synthesized genes, which may or may not occur in humans. Basically, the simpler the gene is (less combinations of amino acids), the more likely it is to occur in humans. To solve both that issue, and the idea that patents on genes that are too simple may cripple further research, I'd suggest that guidelines be drawn to specify how complex a gene must be before it is patentable. Also, companies should be encouraged to search for methods of synthesis for, and also practical applications of their genes, and to patent those instead of the genes themselves.
"I don't marshal my words to be quotable" - Captain Sodium, Gigsville...
Of course they dont own any part of you. A patent gives the holder over a limited period of time a monopoly to exploit commercial applications deriving from his invention. If the invention is a gene, which is present in every cell of your body a patent could cover the following: a) a test to see if the gene is ok. (no mutations e.g. the breast cancer gene brca1) b) the use of this sequence to screen for drugs against a disease etc. In no way anybody could come and cut off your leg because the sequence is present there
ESTs (expressed sequence tags) are short _parts_ of a gene. They are harvested in an almost industrial like manner. The EST itself gives no clue about the function of the gene it is derived from and no practical purpose can be seen. Because of _this_ the patentability of these ESTs is questioned as the article points out.
If they get patented, then an wide exemption for scientific use will be granted.
(This is just an explanation of the article)
I don't belive in god but whouldnt it be a basic value to use against the guys that want to patent everyone. Just think of the day you have to pay someone to have merge your cromosomes togethers for kids.
Things that will fall under this patent:
-Elendale (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA)Common knives, gotta pay me royalties
Industrial cutting tools such as a jackhammer or a wedge
Any pocket knife type invention, hunters will fear me!
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Why would anyone ever consider allowing a patent on somethin we're made of? So a company gets a patent on a gene that we're all comprised of... Does that company therefore own a little piece of each of us?
God no; someone get my lawyer on the phone...
Failure isn't falling. Failure is staying down.
I know we usually put a tongue-in-chick when we see people talk about patenting stuff. But granting patent to genes may not be so outrages as you might think. Think about a situation in the future where we can alter genes in unborn child to make them smarter, stronger, prettier, taller... The company who engineer the gene modification should have a right to patent it. People who are willing to throw in money can have a special child created for them. And this company should have the right to the modification for some time to recover money they spent on research.
- Etam
The content (the codified data) in DNA is free and open, unlike the "content" (maps, textures) in Quake which is proprietary.
The algorithms and processess for manipulating DNA will be propreitary (closed), unlike the algorithms for manipulating the Quake content, which are (nowadays) GPL'd via the Open Source.
"Sig free in '03!"
That said, I think that the objections of many slashdotters is not that patents are necessarily an evil concept, but rather that a) the patent system in the US is deeply flawed, and b) much of that flaw revolves around patents being much too easy to obtain. Patents should allow for a reasonable rate of return for an actual innovation. After all, it is in all of our best interests to encourage companies to use their financial resources to fund products and services that we find beneficial.
Let's say that there is a cure for a leukemia that can be developed through the use of genetic technology, but the cure will take several years and around a billion dollars to develop, owing both to the complexity of the problem and the scope and duration of clinical trials required to verify that the treatment will not, while solving one problem, create another one that may be even worse. Let's also say that said hypothetical treatment comes in the form of a small, easily reproducible pill. Fine. Now, ask yourself, what company on earth is going to undertake that sort of investment if that have no guarantee that some generic drug maker won't simply take their product, do a little chemical exploration, and pop out a duplicate product at one tenth the price long before the original developer has had even the slightest chance of making back their investment? Think of it this way: would you keep going to work if they stopped paying you? Hey, maybe you enjoy your job, but eventually you're going to notice that your fridge is empty, the house is cold and dark, and the toilets won't flush.
It may offend our delicate sensibilities that a child may only be cured of a terrible disease if they, their guardians, or the relevant insurance company can afford the price charged by the developer of the needed drug, but really, this is the way the universe works. When was the last time you accused a farmer of being a heartless f***ing bast**d because he actually has the nerve to charge you for the food you need to stay alive?
But I have digressed slightly from the point. The example above is what I would consider to be a suitable reason to allow for a patent, or some form of intellectual property protection, for the simple reason that unless it is provided, that company will not even try to develop that lifesaving drug, and our hypothetical patient is going to be fertilizing the daffodils before too long. But contrast the above example to something like simply uncovering a gene in our DNA. Obviously, to my eye, the two represent vastly different levels of effort and investment, with the former far outweighing the latter. Rewarding them even close to equally is not a rational approach. So, what we need is perhaps a more flexible system that tailors the patents more closely to the actual needs of the company, product, and consumer. Under this sort of system, the Amazon 1-Click patent might be granted, but it would only have a duration of maybe a month.
Solutions? Perhaps a system whereby a company applying for a patent must submit a line by line of development costs, with the understanding that the patent protection will evaporate the moment the revenues on the product in question reach payback plus a suitable percentage return above costs. What if a company should try to cheat by inflating R&D costs? Perhaps some sort of peer review system. If company X claims manpower and resource costs that exceed those required to build the pyramids, maybe a litle red flag should go up and some experts brought in to look at the problem. It will be tricky at first, but eventually the patent office should have a reasonable idea of the actual development costs faced by companies in different sectors of the economy. The advances in Net technology may allow this sort of thing to be feasible. Anyway, it's just one thought among many...
Ultimately, down the line I think that the Internet and the data revolution might provide the better third way that has always been impossible. Ultimately, this is all about fredom of choice, and personally I don't mind paying a bit more for something if I understand that there are further benefits accruing to me for doing so. By purchasing medications, for example, from the company that developed them rather than a generic manufacturer, my support of the innovator rather than imitator all but ensures that the developer will thrive and continue to develop new and useful treatments that may just save my life down the road. To that end, the ability of the Net to help me gather and organize my choices about which company to deal with will only increase in the future, and in the end that may be the best way. However, there is still a long way to go in that respect, so until then maybe e-mail some presidential candidates and demand that they look at the patent system. These people do theoretically work for you, ya know?
Peace.
In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.
CALLING ALL LAWYERS..CALLING ALL LAWYERS..CALLING ALL LAWYERS..
In the meantime, let's keep this simple:
Gene sequences should not be patented. Change the law, interpret it, whatever.
F**king idiots. e Gold, MD
Patenting discoveries related to the human genome project should be allowed. Originally, patents were intended to allow the company that put the time and money into R&D to recoup their costs, and to gain a commercial advantage in the marketplace. In many cases, the time necissary to go from a research stage (working animal model system)to a market ready product is extensive. For example, discovery of the drug Streptomycin occured in the early 1940's, however it was not avalble to patients until 1955 (these dates are aproximate). That represents about 15 years of R&D, and a hell of a lot of cost. Clinical trails (Phase I thru III) cost a HUGE ammount of money, so much so that smaller companies which already have drug or gene patents must colaberate with larger pharmicutical companies to gain the capital for the process. If companies could not gain $ to recouperate their R&D expenses, why would they continue with private sector research? While I would disagree with a permanent or extremely long running patent on ANY gene found in nature, I think that a 10-20 year patent is fair in this area of work. Being a immunolgy grad student myself, I can appreciate the time and money that goes into this type of work. I don't think the general public has a good concept of the expense of doing biotech research. The other thing worth pointing out, is that if a group does patent a potentailly useful gene, research on this gene will not be quashed, but rather stimulated. Pharmicutical companies conducting R&D often buy such patents so they can continue work on such potentialy interesting (and profitable) genes, and such patents often stimulate colaberation between scientific groups- all good things for turning a newly discovered 'interesting gene' into something which benifits us, a useable end product- whether that takes the form aof a drug, or specific genetic intervention doesnt matter- such work is not profitable unless a patent is possible. Without the patent- you do the R&D, others reap the financail benifits before you have a chance to recoup R&D expenses. They can patent the genes, just not permanently.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, now would it?' -Albert Einstein-
I'd like to add to my previous statement- First, while I agree that the best avenue for research is 'open source' peer reveiw process which occurs in universities, governments do not currently provide enough funding for all scientific reasearch to take place in these facilities, a large portion of biotech research is perfomed by private firms. Secondly, the sucessful patent of gene doesnt just require sequencing as far as I know, you must provide data as to the gene's function. This requires a lot more work.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, now would it?' -Albert Einstein-