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!
Open sourcing discoveries in bio-tech would lead to reduced research costs, reduced development times and ultimatly reduced prices of drugs.
..GNU for biotech
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]
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
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.
... they paid for those slaves God blessed, surely that alone shows slavery is good, and the negros have been saved from their barbaric condition" ....
... etc. - it really causes one to think.
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
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"