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."

Comments

Open source and GPL

[JosKarith]

I'd say that the human genome is fairly open source.
Tho I can see Darl McShyster trying to claim that since everyone's DNA is 99.99% similar to his it must have been copied and we all need to buy $399 Life Licences...

I am all for this

[Lord_Dweomer]

If biotech becomes really easy for consumers to use/create, similar to the manner of open source software, I think something like this could put a lot of power into the hands of the people.

Which is probably why something like this will never be allowed to happen now that people have seen how successful open source is.

Re:I am all for this

[Stargoat]

Open source nothing. To really understand how a human works takes more than four years of university level study. You need to understand the chemistry of drugs, and the biology of what does what. There is a process that takes years of research before a person even understands how drugs really work.

And then you need to create the drug itself. That takes another many years of experimentation. And then you need years of clinical trials. Then a manufacturer needs to then be found.

And someone would propose that drugs be created using an open source process? What would be the incentive of creating drugs or getting the education to do so? This isn't Linux, it's a complicated process of creating a drug for a human. Get it wrong, and your monitor refresh rate is off? No, people die. This is clearly just a pipe dream.

Re:I am all for this

[sTalking_Goat]

If biotech becomes really easy for consumers to use/create, similar to the manner of open source software, I think something like this could put a lot of power into the hands of the people.

I don't see this happeneding. I work in Biotech. The cost of instrumentation alone is astounding. Its not like you can go out and setup a sequencing lab in your basement. An older model used Thermocycler will cost at least 10K, and thats on the low end of the instrumentataion scale. Even if you scratch build equipment yourself (which I've done) its still going to cost you, and try convincing peer reveiw or god forbid, Mr. FDA that your findings on non-validated equipment is worth anything...

I'm all for open source but I don't see it getting very far in high-end Biotech.

Very good idea.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Open sourcing discoveries in bio-tech would lead to reduced research costs, reduced development times and ultimatly reduced prices of drugs.

It will also by extendtion lead to more competition in the bio-tech industry, which can only be a good thing. And it will lead to more consumer scrutiny of what were popping into our bodies.

This is a good idea all round. Except of course for the biotech monopolies who...
[censor type="DMCA" excuse="Subversive,complaint"]

[/censor] ..GNU for biotech

Open-source medicine?

[Apocalypse111]

So, when some of the strange, undocumented side effects of this open-source medication turns you blue, do you think the average Ethiopian will have net-access to go crawling through some message boards looking for a fix? Just kiddin' yo, but I couldn't resist.

Check out bioinformatics.org...

[tcopeland]

....i.e., right here. Looks sort of GForge-ish, although with frames and a custom theme and such-like...

also neuroinformatics

[drfireman]

The Human Brain project funds neuroinformatics projects, many of which are released under free or open source licenses.

Who will pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open-source software? No problem. Unencumbered research? No problem, and I assume non-profit organizations or government sources are paying. However, as I like my drugs tested before taking them, who other than these non-profits will pay the cost to test the proto-drugs?

No patent protection = no profits. No profit = no investment, and no desire to fund tests.

It should be used for all patents

[argoff]

The simple truth is that patents really are a lie about free market economics. They treat it like it's a physical property, but it's not. If millions of people use my car it deprives me use of it in a serious way, but if millions of people use the same invention - then just the opposite happens. The inventor is not only able to keep and use his original invention however he wants, but also now has huge forces contributing to it's improvement.

If the government gave someone a monopoly on making cars, because they didn't have an incentive to make cars when other people can make them too - most of us would see that as crap. Market share isn't an inherent property right. If the government gave someone a monopoly on growing oranges, on the premise that they wouldn't have an incentive to grow oranges if other people could too - most people would see that as crap too. But for some reason, that logic breaks down when it comes to invention.

Finally, looking back on history to paraphrase "look at the great wealth and prosperity of the plantation system, the grand architecture, the vast and rich land, the free markets ... they paid for those slaves God blessed, surely that alone shows slavery is good, and the negros have been saved from their barbaric condition" ....

I wish I could say that patents are causing less harm, but when they recently lokcked out 10's of millions of Africans dying of AIDS from getting generics because "they had no incentive", because patents are "a property right", becasue "the wealth of the pharmasutical industry in the US is proof that patents work" ... etc. - it really causes one to think.

Re:It should be used for all patents

[Derkec]

Patents are good.

Let's assume we do away with them though. Now let's compare two business models. In one, I spend hundreds of millions developing new drugs. Once I pass the very expensive FDA process, I sell my drugs at market rates. In the other, I sit on my ass and wait for someone else to develop drugs. Then I spend a million bucks reproducing the other guy's results and sell the same drugs at market rates.

Which one would you choose? I wouldn't waste my / my shareholders money on R&D, I'd wait. Everyone would. R&D would almost only happen in the public sector and in academia. We'd either see a drastic reduction in new drugs coming to market or the government would need to pay through the nose to do the research.

True, you don't deprive me of the ability to make the drug I developed when you infringe no my patent. However, you get hundreds of millions of in research for free and by competing with me, make my return on that research far less than it otherwise would be.

Throwing some quote in about slavery doesn't help your case any more. It's like if I saw eating candy is great and you equate that to saying slavery is great. Therefore eating candy is bad. You need to develop that argument some more so us dumb people can follow you.

Further drug monopolies should only last 20 years. Some companies use tricks to extend that, and I despise that behavior. But in a properly functioning system, drug patents work just like car patents do. The airplane (and I believe the auto) were patented. That gave monopoly / royalty rights to the patent holders for 20 years. The system wasn't broken. The inventor profited nicely and with time competition could come in. Just as it comes in with generic drugs down the line.

Now when there are life saving drugs in question with no alternative treatment, this takes on a bit of a morbid twist. Perhaps, the taxpayers of the industrialized countries would like to buy the patents on these drugs to make them widely available and still reward the company for doing the work to invent the drug. Keep in mind that if nobody spends the time, energy and cash to develop a drug, those people are going to die anyway.

Now, in the case of catastophe like AIDS, it seems reasonable for American firms to provide low cost drugs to those who can't afford them - purely because that's a nice thing to do. There's been some progress along these lines, but it has been painfully slow. Equally painful has been conservative objections to the low cost item that could even prevent Aids - the condom.

Unless you want to present a viable alternative where drugs will be developed and put through FDA trials by somebody else, patents still seem to be the way to go.

good idea

[Da_Slayer]

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.

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.h tml )have to make you wonder.

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+decisi on/2100-1032_3-5228882.html

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.

Won't Work

[kaellinn18]

I don't think this will work, and let me tell you why. First off, let me preface this by saying that my wife is a soon-to-be pharmacologist, so while I may not have any firsthand knowledge of this, she knows what she is talking about.

1) The cost of research for pharmacology is infinitely (no not literally) more expensive than it is for computer science. In most research for CS you just have to pay for cost of equipment (basic computers typically costing a hell of a lot less than the specialized machines used in development of medicine) and the salary of the researcher. A lot of CS research can be done by one person. For pharmacology you have the cost of equipment (or even the USE of it, sometimes they have to rent time on more uncommon machines; this happens in CS as well, but not nearly as often since it's mainly for the processing power) as well as the cost of the researcher AND his/her assistants. It's almost impossible to do good research in medicine by one's self because of...

2) It takes freaking forever. The number of steps required to find out if a proposed theory for a molecule even has a chance for working is phenomenal. My wife has spent the past few months trying to see if a certain molecule will bond with an AIDS neutralizer. Mind you, this is just the first step. Even if this step does work (which they don't know yet) they don't know if this molecule will a) bond with the aids virus b) will it bond long enough to neutralize? c) if it does bond, will the neutralizing agent be able to reach the virus? or will it be blocked by the bonding molecule? And the list goes on. No pharmacologist who does this for a living is going to volunteer even MORE time out of their lives for no pay. So we'll pay them right?

3) Funding. Right now almost all pharmacology is financed by companies that already have patents or by third party investors. These people invest money into these projects because they expect a profit as return. Yes, I'm sure they also care for the well-being of others, but they do need to recover their costs if a drug succeeds. A vast majority of projects fail, which is why a lot of specialized medicines cost so much. These companies need to stay alive in order to do more research. And don't even talk to me about Federalizing the research. That would be pretty much the dumbest thing ever.

I'm sure there are holes in my argument, but hopefully this will at least provide food for thought and further discussion. Basically, I just don't see it happening.

Costs aren't the same...

[One Louder]

This needs to be thought out, because the cost and regulatory structures for, say, drug development, aren't nearly the same:

1) Developing new drug products requires substantial, very expensive facilities, while the hard costs of software development are very low.

2) Drugs must go through a long and expensive testing and regulatory process before being released to the market. Open Source software simply wouldn't exist if it cost millions of dollars and took several years before you could release it.

3) There are massive costs associated with product liability in drugs - no one would give away software if the same liability exposure existed.

4) For every drug that makes it to market, there are dozens to hundreds that don't make it through the process but incur the costs of development anyway. The unsuccessful attempts are subsidized by the successful ones.

While I think that the sharing of information in biotech is generally a good thing, I don't think the economics mesh with a software-like "open source" model.