Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell "Master Gene" Found
nexex writes "From the Washington Post, 'Scientists yesterday said they have discovered a long-sought "master gene" in embryonic stem cells that is largely responsible for giving those cells their unique regenerative and therapeutic potential.' The report summarizes an article in the newest issue of the scientific journal, Cell."
Since they've now apparently isolated this gene, isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells? Hopefully this kills off any remaining debate over cloning/killing babies and paves the way for real, theraputic research.
You are not the customer.
If they have found the controller for the unlimited reproduction abilities of these cells, then we may be well on the way to curing many of these harmful diseases... True cures for Alzheimers and Parkinsons???
... [because] it's wrong".
maybe even eliminate costly transplants...
Who knows, we could even save Michael J Fox's career... =)
Hopefully the people in charge realise that this is more than an attempt "to transcend embryo research
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
I would hope that since this is being done at a
University that won't happen.
So would I, but bitter experience has proved that this expectation is unreasonable. A number of the existing stem cell lines that have been annointed as available to federally-funded researchers are in fact patented by the University of Wisconsin, if memory serves. However, perhaps the fact that this latest discovery was made in Scotland and Japan will change things.
It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high per item cost to help defray research costs.
I hear this a lot on Slashdot, but it misses half of the point. The problem is with patents on basic research, which do not represent a marketable product. A gene patent is commercially useless without extensive further research, e.g. traditional drug development. In contrast, many patents held by academic groups are for inventions that have immediate commercial potential. For instance, the automatic DNA sequencer was invented at Caltech, presumably with federal grant money, then patented. It was immediately commercialized, enabling a high-quality product to get to market quickly. (It was also truly revolutionary at the time.) Gene patents, on the other hand, are usually just used to stifle further research by competitors who might actually be capable of realizing its medical and economic potential.
(This is distinct from junk patents that hardly meet any of the other standards such as novelty and non-obviousness. I've also seen a fair number of those applied for by academic groups. I think this reflects the sad fact that competition has become so much more intense that scientific ethics have increasingly disappeared - this is not limited to patents. Since I'd prefer to keep my job, I can't go into as much details as I'd like.)
Sorry, even a libertarian (as opposed to anarchist) society will have to deal with the question of who or what is a rights bearing being. Artificial intelligences, embryos, the retarded, catatonic, and other border conditions have to be addressed in any society that's as advanced as we are.
Patenting existing genes is unconstitutional in any event. As is clearly stated, both patents and copyrights exist to allow *inventors* and *artists* to profit from their work for a brief period of time, before that work must be released into the public domain.
Discovered natural events, like genes, are not 'invented'. There is no constitutional basis for issuing a patent for a discovery of this nature. You could patent the *invention* used to isolate and manipulate the gene, but patenting the gene itself is bogus, a ridiculous extension of the process that goes well beyond constitutional protections.
Unless, of course, the people involved in trying to patent the gene suffer from the delusion that they are god.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?