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."
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).
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.
Click here.
--
RumorsDaily
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).
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?
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!
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.
GNU Plant License