Slashdot Mirror
Open Source for Biotechnology
LarsWestergren writes "The Economist claims that Open Source is such a success for software development, the model should be used more often in areas such as biotechnology and bioinformatics. The similarity between open source and the academic process with their 'you share, I share' principles is shown by the human genome project. The paper argues that this process should be used for instance to developing medicines unburdened by patents, useful especially for third world countries or diseases that affect relatively few people, where medical corporations have previously thought that the cost of research have not been worth it."
Which is probably why something like this will never be allowed to happen now that people have seen how successful open source is.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
the post is funny but the point is actually very interesting. Drug companies face huge legal risks from side-effects of medication (think thalidomide). How would open source medicine pay for these risks (somebody has to pay, even if it the patients who pay with their health)? The obvious answer is via a public health care system (like Canada's say) but there would likely have to be limits on the compensation allowable. But the basic idea of zero patent medicine research is excellent!
I second this. They'll want to hang to what they consider proprietary knowledge. Folks will (have already) argue that in science (especially genomics) all related knowledge belong to all of us because it is part of us. That argument makes sense to me, but as long as a company acquires such information without sharing it, it is still "proprietary" in a certain sense.
In bio-business there is a big dis-incentive to sharing information as they are out for the greater good of their stockholders first, humankind second. In acedemia, you would think there would be much incentive for sharing, but that is not always true. It depends greatly on the funding model of the institution or project. Many university studies are funded by industry with the understanding that any resultant patents would be assigned to the people holding the purses to commercialize as they wish. Other projects remain even more proprietary in the sense that nothing is patented but kept as a internal IP.
Having these types of projects being "open source" is a very good idea. The exchanged and access of information will not only allow more people to work on a project but for medicines it would in theory make them safer. Instead of having to take a drug companies word about a product you would have direct access to all the research and testing of said product from the beginning to the end.
h tml )have to make you wonder.
i on/2100-1032_3-5228882.html
This open source idea for medicine and science would run into the same problem that open source software runs into. Greed.
People trying to get more money because they think they are entitled to it. Some examples would be Microsoft and SCO.
CEO Darl McBride who is at the helm of The SCO Group is leading the charge so to speak against open source software with claims to owning rights. Honestly most people realize this is a bid for them to be either bought out or to gain money from legal battles. This strategy is employed because it has the potentional to make money. SCO having not really made any innovations and in a steady decline over the years in terms of revenue and stock value has choosen this path. Now personally I think it was McBride's idea based on his track record with IKON Office Solutions. But then again the shady nature of SCO and it's parent company (explained here: http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.
Microsoft on the other hand was sued due to a patent being violated by their Internet Explorer web browser. Reference here: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+appeals+Eolas+decis
Not to get into a rant about IP and software Patents but both of these cases show how money can be obtained through legal matters instead of the time honored method of working for it. No matter which way either case goes the problem is with old laws and ideas messing up the free (as in beer) trade of ideas and information.
Hopefully in the science field something like the above examples would not happen but there is always a chance. Big drug companies would not go quietly into the night if their development processes suddenly became public access and with more competition driving overall prices down. Big business loves to stay as BIG business.
Personally the idea behind "open source" science and medicine is very sound and will help many people in the long term. I just hope the process of it becoming free is less painful than the software industry.
Push harder towards Open Media/Content
The Economist is usually very good in its bioscience articles. This article is completely abyssmal - the person who wrote it has absolutely no understanding of how scientific research works. and that is not flamebait but the sad truth
First of all, we are a bio-informatics lab - all the software we produce is open source. This is not the exception but the rule.
The motivation behind our research is not profit and again, in academia that is the rule not the exception.
The article states that if aspirin were the cure for cancer - it would not be developed because there would be no profit. If that is true then it is a reflection, not of a flawed scientific research model but rather a flawed biotech/pharmaceutical model
Researchers like myself would be looking into it - because it would be INTERESTING and scientifically important regardless of whether it would be profitable.
Basic scientific research is done by publicly funded labs like ours. The results are freely communicated. Biotech companies use our results to make money (and rightly so) but in the end do very little basic research - because, as the article says, - it does not pay. However let us not get the two confused as our poor "science" writer did. The NIH funding model may not be perfect- for example there is probably too much emphasis on western diseases like cancer rather than third world problems like malaria - which sort of creeped into the article. And it is appalling that we have 10 versions of Viagra rather than cheaper generic chemotherapy alternatives but the blame for that does not lie with the lack of basic research but further down in the R and D food chain.