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."

Comments

Is this patentable?

[dtolton]

Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
information? I would hope that since this is being done at a
University that won't happen. Although with all the recent patent
craziness, I wouldn't be completely suprised if they granted a patent
on it.

It still concerns and dismays me greatly that there is any discussion
of patenting things like the human genome. As many have said, they
are a discovery rather than an invention. Let's hope this research
follows that philosophy.

Sadly, the fact that stem cells have great potential application to
ease human suffering is seen by many people as a great way to make a
buck. 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. ::sigh::

Re:Is this patentable?

[the gnat]

I agree, but unfortunately it's not really 'unconstitutional" until the Supremes say so (or until Congress passes a law, which wouldn't make it unconstitutional but would have the same effect). What's needed is for a gene patent to stifle medical research on some high-profile illness, particularly an illness that afflicts some group with lots of money and political clout. Only people realize the damage that gene patents can do, there will be considerable motivation to steamroll over the whining of biotechs and patent lawyers and declare them illegal. I'm a little surprised that Myriad's BRCA1 patent hasn't done this here, though Canada and France seem to be slowly getting the message.

(Again, this is different from, say, AIDS drug patents, which I'd argue are still necessary even though Big Pharma needs to chill the fuck out. People would be far more outraged if a gene patent was used to block the sale of a live-saving drug, though I'm not sure how this is any different from Myriad suing breast-cancer researchers. Call it the difference between greed and spite.)

Re:Is this patentable?

[skywire]

You have the right idea about patents in general. However, a few years ago Congress decided to let discoverers of genes patent them. This is certainly a legal oddity (conflicting with the core meaning of patents in US law), but they wanted to encourage such discovery, and the patent system was a practical tool for effecting the policy.

Does this mean no more embrionic research?

[SpamJunkie]

Can anyone familiar with the details say if this will end the need to do research on embryos? This seems to be a controversial aspect of stem cell research and eliminating this need may help win public acceptance.

Re:Potential

[Cipster]

The problem with that is that you would have to continuously control the gene externally (essentially try and baby sit it). It would be much more easy to figure out how to turn an upstream switch on since:
-You get to take advantage of cellular signal amplification so you will only need a small initial signal to turn on the cascade.
-You can take advantage of the regulatory system apready in place so the newly activated cells don't turn into a tumor or worse.

Useful to find this gene role in cancer

[Muhammar]

A lot of tumor cells use signaling pathways which are activated normaly only in embryogenesis - turning the cell signaling off is a new promising way to treat cancer without the typical debilitating chemotherapy side-effects. The ability to switch this master stem-cell gene off could be useful in this respect.

Religious History

[PsiPsiStar]

>Christians were angry with jews over what their >ancesters did

Allegedly did. One gospel account has the Romans holding Jesus's trial, another account has the Sanhedrin holding the exact same trial.
So one of the gospels violates a commandment and bears false witness.

>And christians, unlike nazis, have doctrines of >love and forgiveness that tended to ameliorate >anger.

Individual Christians may live by such doctrines, but historically and politically pogroms, murder, and severe economic sanctions were commonly used by religiously oriented governments (Christians included) as a form of political control which played on feelings of religious nationalism. The Vatican was openly in support of Hitler, then tried to erase its involvement afterwards. The tremendous support given to Nazism by religious institutions was not an accident.

It seems that the political usefulness of religion is to help individuals to assert their moral superiority over others, and then use that superiority to justify expansion and or exploitation. Christianity may make its followers well disposed towards other Christians, but it has rarely, from what I have seen, increased the acceptance of various 'outsiders' (whoever those happen to be at the time) by Christians. The Quakers were one possible exception. Our modern emphasis on tolerance is more a novelty than the rule.