Slashdot Mirror
IP And Genetics: Genetic Copyleft?
"Suddenly, the free exchange of plant resources is in question as discoveries representing millions of dollars in profits are patented, potentially keeping poor farmers from using them."
uncadonna writes "Here's a
story (NYT; free reg. req.)
about genetic scientists who want to maintain natural genetic diversity in food crops, resorting to
defensive patents.
Sounds like
kindred spirits to me. Wonder if they've ever heard of copyleft."
So you are saying that you have hungry children and starving livestock, eh? Well, as a matter of fact my company has some intellectual property that could be of some use to you. Special plants designed specifically to grow well in this environment. What's that? You've got no money? Well then, I think I'll come back around after you've become a bit more civilized and realized that the only way to make money straight off ideas it to keep those ideas to yourself. Good luck with the harvest!
--
+&x
You're joking right? That's a pretty limited view of capitalism.
Got Rhinos?
Terminator seeds are a good idea, your devotion to everything GPL had clouded your mind. Sterility is an important part of any genetically enhanced plant. Without it, the enhanced genes can be propigated into the wild. How great would that be if a non-desireable weed type plant cross-breed with an enchanced plant an inherited the genes? Usually the plants are selected for having a gene that makes them resistant to pesticide. The last thing farmers need is genetically enhanced, pesticide resistant weeds in their fields. Terminator seeds are intended to stop genetic disasters, not increase the amount of income for a seed manufacturer. It is just an unfourtonate consequence of the technology.
One thing the article doesn't make entirely clear is the types of patents being issued or how they work in Mexico. In the United States, for example, there is a class of patent specifically related to hybrid plants and animals -- without any form of genetic engineering. Simply discovering or cultivating a new species or subspecies is sufficient to obtain patent rights to it. Most hybrid crops and many popular flowering plants and shrubs fall into this category. (Strangely enough, these "natural" hybrids are quite often quite harmful to the environment and humans; africanized "killer" bees are one good example).
Contrary to popular belief, companies do not patent genetically modified crops, but rather the use of a transgene (gene transplanted from a different strain or species), the process by which it is used, the system in which it is used (for example, glyphosate anabolism), etc. The notion there being that such are basically chemical process patents.
Also, patenting existing chemical substances and modifications to same is a time honored tradition as old as the patent process itself. It's not likely to change. This is how we got the dyes in our clothes (the clothes themselves if you've your polyester leisure suit on), the majority of the modern pharmacopia, et cetera. As sad as it is to say, without profit or war as motivators, there would be insufficient motive to develop technology that requires substantial research or development.
Were we talking about the US, there would be no need to patent information which you published in the public domain for defensive purposes, since doing so eliminates subsequent claims by prior art. I don't know if this is true in Mexico. What the article is describing is the just-in-case scenario whereby things that are of general benefit are released to the public but if there is a significant commercial interest, then the technology can be licensed for profit. It sounds fine except that farmers are not molecular biologists and generally the technology is useless without an implementor (generally a corporation), and the middle-man approach just adds to the cost for subsequent customers.
Genetically modified seed and hybrid seed are not, contrary to the assertion of one poster, typically more expensive. They are per pound of seed, but typically the enhanced traits generate yields that more than compensate. The higher profitability of growing engineered crops is what keeps farmers planting them (at least outside the thrid world). In some areas, growing GM crops can cost as little as 1/3 as much to produce as regular crops. Over the past few years, the costs of seed has gone down significantly.
In fact, it's that GM crops are so economical which is the real problem for those opposing GMO's. It's one thing to support conventional or organic farming, but it's very difficult to get farmers to fall in line when it means cutting into their profits and potentially destroying their soil (both organic and conventional farming are extremely destructive, in comparison, due to tillage and chemical use). It also makes it hard for third-world farmers to compete in exports as they often do not have the capital to outlay for seed, and they can't produce as high a grade of crop.
Now, most seed companies make their hybrid and GMO seed available in third-world countries for little or no cost (though some GMOs are really only advantageous if you make use certain fertilizers, herbicides, etc. also sold by the seed vendor). This too has proven disasterous for the control of distribution of GM seed because many times it is received at no cost and then resold by the farmer. This has been especially true in South America of late.
Ironically, the uncurbed distribution of GMO seed probably would have been halted by a technology developed by, I think, Pioneer Hi-Bred of France: the so-called "Terminator" technology (which Monsanto got credit for, despite never having licensed it, much less developing it) which renders the GM seed sterile. Initially this was attacked because it was hyped by anti-GM groups as being a threat because it could render the worlds crops sterile by giving birth to sterile offspring :) . It later occurred to everyone that sterile crops don't have any offspring, much less sterile ones. Ultimately, it was seen as a technology that could be used to exploit third-world farmers by forcing them to buy seeds anew each year (which it could be used for -- US and european farmers already do this as a matter of course), and possibly rub out subsistence farmers. It goes without saying that no company wanted their names associated with that and I'm pretty sure the vendor was never able to license the technology.
Granted, the food may not be harmful to eat, and by all measure so far, GM plants have yet to show any environmental impact (in the US and Europe they've been in wide use for about 20 years; because of blight problems, nearly all US potatos are GM), but it's still a concern for people and is likely to be same for some time. I can't imagine that it will be practical to educate the populous sufficiently that they would have sufficient background to make an informed decision (right now, the vast majority of detractors and supporters of GM technologies have no particular knowledge of the subject save propaganda or paranoia). In that case, I imagine that the technology will take some time to gain general acceptance, but I'm sure it will unless somebody produces some evidence that the risks of GM tech exceeds the benefits (or even exceeds the risk of natural genetic variation).
Patenting human genes is also an intriguing subject. Obviously you cannot patent a gene without and ascribed function since you need to show utility and a prototype of it's use. What you could attempt to patent would be the methods used for isolating specific genes or products that target the functionality of the gene (to date, many companies have patented collections of gene candidates as parts of a trait/drug target screening process - the "gene" themselves are not in themselves patentable, at least in the US). For example, Taq DNA polymerase (an enzyme from Thermophilus aquaticus used to replicate DNA with high fidelity using a technique called PCR), is the subject of several patents. The gene itself is not patented, because it can't be, but the applications for using it for PCR (and several other uses) is patented. If you want to use Taq for another use, say as a paint additive or cancer cure, then you'd be free to do so (and patent it).
Also, on the GATTACA front, it should probably be pointed out that there are physical constraints to the human genome that would make it functionally impossible to do that sort of trait expression engineering (you could optimize for a few traits, but the interdepdence of traits on common signals, pathways, etc. precludes a generalized method for specifying aribtrary phenotypes).
True, much of the purely theoretical work does occur in an academic setting, most universities can't hold a candle to the resources present in a commercial biotech company to produce actual product.
Frankly, there isn't a whole lot of actual product being produced. Just like the Internet craze, biotech company owners generally just make money on the stock market rather than running a profitable business.
Believe me, if you had the choice between going to work for a high paying biotech company or staying at the university as a grad student for meager wages, where would you end up?
Hey, I've had that choice and made my decision concerning that already. Perhaps you would have chosen differently.
Lots of people can't get weed to plant the next crop, there's a big famine in most of the world(3rd world, should I say, they always get all the hits), and that means LOTS of people die, revolutions(not that they are bad, but...), etc, more people die. Sure it is a fast solution to the demographic problems on earth.
I imagine worse than that. Much worse. Never mind that Monsanto is the same company that brought the gift of PCBs to the world, ignoring the evidence of how hazardous they are, and also brought us saccharin and even brag about that on their webpage, that they censor opposing views, and generally act like the genetic Mafia, suing farmers left and right.
Giving this vicious, dishonest, fascist corporation a monopoly on natural phenomena and then encouraging them to spread crops with zero genetic diversity across the world invites terrorism. Imagine this: Monsanto succeeds in their vision of global domination of the food market. Then Iraq releases a phage specifically targeting Monsanto products, resulting in global crop failures. Due to all the crops being the same, or having been cross-pollinated by the offensive plants, world starvation, global riots, a world war, you get the picture.
Even worse, I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to release such a phage themselves. Is there a single damn thing this company has ever made that isn't toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise vile?
Even if none of the worst-case scenarios happen, they abandon the "Terminator" seeds, and they *merely* get a monopoly on the food market, and create a slave-class of Third World farmers who work as serfs to pay for seeds each year, because they aren't allowed to save seeds--after all, by the insane logic of "intellectual" property law the natural growth of plants is now "patent infringement"--isn't that bad enough?
This company is pure fucking evil and they need to be stopped.
I'm gonna have to agree with AC on that one.
Got Rhinos?
Of course, the idea that someone can _patent_ something which was for the most part created naturally (my "favorite" being the companies patenting human genes) is, IMHO, riduculous.
Agreed. Even scarier than patenting something evolved out of artificial selection are patents of plants found in nature, like these, that could help a lot of people but are now "property" of someone.
Before opening this bag of seed, you must agree to the terms of the end user license agreement? Yup, it's already happening, believe it or not. I went to buy some seed potatoes on-line at www.irish-eyes.com and on one variety it said "For personal use only." How can someone dictate where and how you use what you grow? In the future, all new varieties may be patented and come with license agreements. Monsanto has their "Roundup(TM) Ready(TM)" corn and other crops that produce sterile seeds. What if you got one of them to grow? What if you started to produce your own corn (non hybrid) that had the same genes, but a different name? You'd be sued by Monsanto, of course, because no one can produce those genes without their consent. Now, to really boggle your mind. What if I get a patent on the Y chromosome? No one may produce male offspring without my written consent?
No, of course not.
The patent is for an online apparatus that humps your leg.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Oh nice job, moderators. This sort of flame bait pops up alot.
If I could STILL keep my car I would give away my car.
Confused? Good.
There's a big difference between a limited material good and a "product" that has zero copy cost.
Click here.
--
RumorsDaily
The story makes it sound like the center is using patents to protect the availability of their hybrids, which is sensible.
I'm still not sure how anyone can get a patent on a specific set of genes. My understanding of patents would allow a breeder or researcher to patent a particular new hybrid, or at least the process for generating that hybrid, but specific genes are things that already exist in nature, and should be unpatentable. Patenting of genes is more evidence of a deep intellectual confusion in IP law, and people's attempts to make rational decisions in an irrational environment.
With all the discoveries being made about genetics, it's a shame that the predominating sense of capitalism is preventing people from sharing ideas and furthering research. It's as if everyone has a piece of the puzzle, but nobody wants to be the first to give it up.
Got Rhinos?
"When it first came out," he said, handing a free copy to a visitor, "my idea was to put on the back of each one: 'Duplication of this CD is enthusiastically encouraged.'"
Got Rhinos?
It doesn't matter if they've heard of copyleft or not... Patent Law and Copyright Law are two different beasts. Patented things may be copyrighted... maybe... but copyrighting (more likely trademarking) something you've patented would simply be a trademark of the product you've created based on a patent.
As far as I know the idea of copyleft doesn't translate well into the world of patents. Which is not a good thing...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
The power of the GPL rests in copyright law. Unfortunately, copyright law doesn't protect many of the things that we'd like to "open genome". US copyright law provides only very weak protection on databases; no copyright law protects inventions/discoveries/natural products. Hence, you're forced to look at patent or contract law. It's hard to develop a system with the awesome viral power of the GPL that exploits patent or contract law.
In the end, the genome project settled for keeping the genome fully public domain, and Clinton and Blair made a high moral ground statement about how that was a Good Thing (tm).
The problem is that medicine and biotech are such multi-faceted diciplines. A patent on a gene someone develops to keep their corn alive, has a good chance becoming part of a cure for a human disease, or whatever. (sure that scenario is a longshot, but you get the jist)
As soon as a case comes along where a bio-patent obstructs someone's freedom to receive proper health care or live thier life in a reasonable fashion, (Imagine if a cure for Diabetes was held up cause of a genetic patent case!)
tcd004
Check out Janet Reno Margolis, the least downloaded woman on the internet!
Defensive patents have been necessary for a very long time. The 19th century Shakers learned that the hard way when commercial companies started patenting medicines the Shakers had invented.
So those companies should just spend billions of dollars on that research without any possibility of getting a return on their investment?
Donate your car to charity. Be the first to give it up. What's that you say? No way? Why not? You didn't mind suggesting that an R&D lab fork over their entire VC funding and years of effort for 'The Human Fund', why the sudden reluctance to part with something as minor as a car? Oh, that's right, you don't wanna do it cos it's *your* car... but it's not your research, not your discoveries, so it's ok to give those away. Right?
Altruism usually isn't - it's always easier to pledge 'the other guy's' resources...
Read the article, it is totally inconsistant. It starts off saying that new resistant food crops will allow everyone in the third world to have food. The main problem in the third world is not droughts and famine, these are just the worst case disasters. The problem is food is farmers are forced to mainly grow food for export (cash crops) as opposed to local varieties. Availability of new varieties of food wont change this. OK this paragraphs a bit muddled, but look it up if you want a more thorough explanation.
What strikes me is that the paper is trying to sell genetic engineering by big multinationals as a good thing, and give the example of these people working with patents and with these companies as an example. Later in the article it says how these organisations can give the reproducing organisms for use in the third world, and the multinationals can sell crops that wont reproduce in the developed world. First off why should I believe that will happen?
You're right Monsanto did drop the technology which is good for several reasons.
Interestingly enough the USDA has patented the technology I wonder if this was alos a defensive patent? If not who is to say that other companies beside Monsanto will not start using terminator seeds in third world countries?
They are doing it with soybean and corn seeds, so every year you must buy new ones. What really scares me is how the government controls these seeds. The farmer can't afford to buy from a normal company, but he can sure get a deal on the one time use government seeds.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
It is sad but the reality of biotech research whether in the public or the private domain is that patents are needed. While patenting a gene sequence is still somewhat indefensible by public researchers, patenting genetically modified species is a necessity. A research group will put years of effort and hundreds of thousands of research dollars into researching and developing a genetically modified product. Without patent protection all of that work will go to waste if competitors get there first. (And the biotech world is fiercely competitive even within universities). Public institutions and charitable research groups simply cannot afford to take those risks.
It may seem hard to believe but even third world nations own some of these patents. Recent collaborations between western research institutes and african, south american and asian researchers have led to development of vitamin enriched rice and faster growing rice varieties which are patented and owend by the countries involved in their development.
Research is expensive and the people who fork out the cash have to see some reward. In the private arena this may be profit, in the public arena it is the protection of the product and developers rights. Both are protected by patents.
Copyright, as I understand it, applies to the deliberate organisation of data. That, too, should not be applicable. After all, naturally-occuring DNA is not deliberately organised, at least not by any human agency. (Otherwise it wouldn't be natural!)
I understand industry's passionate desire to protect artificially-created DNA, but can you? After all, it doesn't copy perfectly. It's not digitally recorded. Thus, the "invention" will decay, through natural processes, ending up as something totally different.
IMHO, to satisfy all parties, there needs to be a new system, which protects the original invention but which specifically either EXcludes or INcludes by-products of that invention. It also needs to be valid for no greater period than the first natural example of the same construct is found.
But, for now, if patents apply, copyright should as well. So go with it! I'd like to buy a cerial box of GPL flakes. :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's been a running complaint that the same seed costs more every year, not because of inflation or increased production cost, but because the big agro congloms know they're the only game in town and can charge whatever they damn well please. Now that the congloms have figured out how to make farmers need to buy their wares every year through genetic manipulation to make the plants utterly sterile, things are getting MUCH, MUCH worse..
Perhaps some enterprising ag engineer and a couple of lawyers can keep this trend from escalating through the fear of these patents. "I will only license this patent if the cost of the finished product does not exceed x. I'll give it to you for free if the cost is x-4. Don't like it? You can't sell at all!!"
.sig: Now legally binding!
I don't see how this would work without undermining the concept of patenting (not the current patent process, mind you), but the idea that something is developed, exploited for financial gain for a limited period of time, then released into the public domain. If you put it straight into the public domain, anything that extends it is then patentable.
Also, this will be expensive. Patents aren't automatic like copyrights. They're very costly. What company is going to pay to give away what they've developed (whether it should be theirs or not)? What government is going to allow its grants to be used to undermine its own patent process for ideological reasons?
This will be trickier than copylefting code. Bring in the lawyers.
-jpowers
-jpowers
There have been a number of really acrimonious fights over the patenting of organisms lately (Even outside the emotionally charged field of human genetics). In particular is the issue of "Biopiracy", the patenting of organisms that have been in use for ages by indigenous peoples in far-flung parts of the world. Some recent examples include acrimonious fights over the Neem Tree, Basmati Rice, and Tumeric. Here's a Link to an article on this, any search engine can give you dozens more.
Perahps we'll start seeing some reform in the next few years...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If the gene sequence is copylefted, does that mean that the cell has to publish its source if it mutates? :-)
--
Mike
The simple fact is that most truly important research happens in academia and not industry. Look at Nobel prize winners -- only a handful of them are industrial scientists. And when industry does attempt to do important research, more often than not they are competing with similar research going on in academia -- they difference being, of course, that industrial research aims at keeping the knowledge proprietory while academic research doesn't. Sure, not allowing genes to be patented would result in fewer biotech companies -- but why would that be a bad thing?
GNU Plant License