Slashdot Mirror
Should DNA be Patentable?
nexex writes: "This story seems brings the patent debate home; specifically, should a company or person be able to 'own' your DNA? Obviously researchers want to profit from their discoveries, thus funding new research. But critics counter they are profitting at the expense of our health, citing restrive screening licenses for things such as breast cancer and Alzheimer's. Citing a figure from a UK activist group, 500,000 gene or gene sequence patents have been applied for worldwide. Another excellent article on this issue from Salon.com was from a couple years ago."
If someone tries to patent my DNA, shouldn't I be able to provide them with lock of hair as an example of prior art?
They do not Patent DNA. They did not invent DNA.
THey can patent specific genes for a specific purpose.
So if they discover a gene that permits them to do something interesitng, like grow you a third arm... they can patent that.
If they discover a gene that will make you smarter... they can patent that.
They cannot patent genes until they have a use for them.
Patents that attempt to cover general applicability of properties of nature are invalid and the courts that uphold such patents in error.
Seastead this.
I always assumed that a patent was intended to cover a new or uniquely contrived object. Were these geneticists to be patenting recombinant DNA, I would be alright. When they begin to patent DNA that they discover, it becomes a travesty of science. Not only do they have no rights to that DNA, but it impedes scientific progress. Of course, most modern geneticists aren't working for the benefit of man. Some work for their own good first and last, Monsanto, while others work for their own good first but hope to benefit civilization in the process. Even academic research is beginning to fall under the latter category. In both examples, progress is stifled by greed and gluttony.
Pax Digitalia
The space of all-possible-digital-information maps directly onto the space of integers. Asking for a patent on a chunk of digital information (DNA, object code, what have you) is the same as asking for a patent on an integer. The claim that "oh, but it's a very large integer" is specious. Patents are for inventions not facts-of-math.
Copyright is only slightly more reasonable.
-- MarkusQ
they can document the functionality down to the level that computer code is now
The functionality is one that is not previously existing or discovered in nature.
a unique combination of features where the majority of the code is new work. The thought here is that Ford company probably could not patent a new engine unless they owned the patents on the component parts and technologies. But there are an indefinite number of ways to build car engines.
Thus one probably could not patent a fire breathing dragon, but could patent the various implementations of the various subsystems.
patenting huge random chunks of DNA, hoping that something practical will come out of it is not the way to go.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Patenting genes that occur in nature would be an obviously questionable practice, and it worries me that this issue has been kicking around unresolved for at least two years. But the thing you are describing here also worries me: it sounds like you're saying that the genetic information is properly unpatentable, but having sequenced it, I could apply for a patent controlling ANY useful application of that information. I would prefer to see patents limited to controlling a specific application of the information.
But the obviously worst-case scenario would be where any fool could operate a sequencer for a couple weeks, and patent whatever he gets, regardless of whether an application is apparent at the time of filing.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Notwithstanding the fact that your point was funny, you give a great example of why it's dangerous and unfortunate that we apply the vocabulary of physical property to the concept of "intellectual property".
it is intellectual property that's been unclaimed
...as if intellectual property is part of a landscape you want to stake your claim to, instead of being part of the creative process. Sigh. If only we could discuss it differently, as a means instead of an end, or a journey more than a destination.