Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Life?
JimCricket writes "What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation? Should life be Open Source? Download Aborted takes a look at this issue."
Its just ruminations on someones blog and should be treated as such.
but I resent the comparison of Gates and God. Despite 99.9% of the field of science being reverse engineering.
At least it's not copy protected, well except for the atom.
Genetic life should not be able to be owned. It would be the same as if I owned the DNA sequence to create a fish. Would it also mean that each person technically owns their DNA or any other type of unique chemical composition? This could open up an extremely dangerous black market of genetic trade. ie: I could sell my DNA strand on the black market for money, and then I could be freely cloned etc.
I got off topic, just thinking out loud.
Aj
GroupShares Inc. - A Free and Interactive Stock Market Community
-------
artlu.net
What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation?
People owning oat and barley futures make a small fortune.
That would seriously be a good way of making money.
Step 1: Make nasty wheat virus
Step 2: Buy barley and oat futures
Step 3: Release nasty wheat virus
Step 4: Profit!
Sounds alarmist to me. If anyone pulled a stunt like that, their patent would be revoked, if only due to popular protest. People on /. ascribe a little too much power to corporations. If the price of wheat bread goes up 10x, you better believe there's going to be some popular protest - and people vote, not corporations.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
This is so simple...
"Intellectual Property" is not real property. It's a set of rights granted by law that can be taken back by another law.
So, if some bio-hacker ever does release a wheat plauge with the intent of profiting on sales of Wheat 2.0, that plan can very easily be foiled simply by passing the Wheat Fraud Prevention Act of 20xx that voids the Wheat 2.0 patent. Problem solved.
2) Engineered sequences can be patented, but not the organism holding the engineered sequence.
3) Engineered sequences which escape into the natural population through natural reproductive means loose their patent, with a caveat, the former patent owner should be held responsible for all clean up cost, and may be subject to bio-terrorism charges for endangering a nations eco-system.
Just thinking outloud, sorry.
I'm a bio student and Dr. David Suzuki, a noted geneticist and bio ethicist came to my university (Emory) last semester to deliver a speech about this very subject. He argued that genetic manipulation had enormous potential to do good for the world, but there was little chance that corporations would use it to do good (He says genetically modified food feeding the world's poor and hungry is a sham - we already make enough food for everyone on earth, the problem is distribution, through those selfsame corporations) and that genetic technology was simply moving too fast for people to both come to terms with it and regulate its widespread use.
We're seeing this in the crazy lawsuits and issues stemming from genetic engineering (companies forcing farmers to pay for genetically modified crops that accidently took hold on their land and the supposedly sterlie glolight danios aquarium fish [which arent sterile - indeed since they really are just zebra danios they should breed like mad]).
The further corporatization of science is not a good thing; yes the money does help new research get done, but none of the important sharing of information goes on. We've had open source in biology, through research and journals (Watson and Crick's use of many source to construct a model of DNA comes to mind immediately) and that kind of peer review will be very necessary in genetics.
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Some people have moderated this funny but it's actually a bit insightful. If the genetic changes and DNA are the equivilant of "open source" or "open dna" (which is what life should be) then we'd be able to fix genetic problems introduced by pharmacutical companies' products. Hell, peer review would be a Godsend in that industry b/c without it the nightmare involved in figuring out what caused a problem in X person A) costs too much B) Takes WAY too much time in lab tests, blood tests etc.
Were not very close to comparing what DNA a person has and saying, "Hey you'll be allergic to this drug" yet, but I for one can't wait for our open source dna overlords to realise keeping an open system is worth it.
I realize that it's incredibly unpopular on slashdot to come out in favor of practically any intellectual property, but this article was logically flawed. Yes, it makes sense that the genetic code(s) for apples should be public domain, or perhaps even shared by the few people willing/able to describe those codes, but to extend that logic and say that if someone CREATES a new code based on the old, let's say for an apple that cures cancer, is ridiculous. At the very least, if someone were nice enough to do so on their own dime (they'd have to if they didn't own the improvement - we'd all just steal it from them otherwise) then we should be nice enough to give that guy some help/money/services in exchange for his incredible contribution to life. If only we could count on everyone to do that, or if only there were some kind of sociological structure to accomplish the same goal. OHWAIT! There is - and it's called the public freaking market. By allowing (temporary) ownership of intellectual property such as this, we collectively incentivize innovation, via direct reward. I completely agree with shareadvocates that in some cases, specifically in environments where information is quickly and universally shared as a matter of course, that same level of innovation can probably be reached or even surpassed by many people making very minor, inexpensive innovations collectively. Hell, there are millions of programmers - it's not that exclusive a club. But in genetic engineering and manipulation, where the resources to contribute to the science are often incredibly expensive, more protection and incentive needs to be applied if any innovation can be expected.
I'll agree that there needs to be legal protection for non-GMO farmers who have crops that are cross-polinated by GMOs. This would be difficult to accomplish given the complications involved with proving that only cross-polination actually occurred(and that the victim non-GMO farmer wasn't actually pirating patented seeds). From a legal standpoint, it would be easiest to simply forbid the patenting of any organism(GMO or otherwise) which reproduces freely and sexually. In other words, this would allow firms to patent sterile or asexual organisms along with parts of organisms(vat-grown tissues, organs, etc).
As far as that Monsanto case goes, I find it rather unfortunate that the court's decision does not appear to be based on how the Roundup Ready canola plants got onto Schmeiser's property in the first place. That should have been the primary concern of the court.
Also, in regards to the rampant spread of GMOs into a wild environment, keep in mind that non-native species have been spreading for years, causing shifts in ecosystems all across the globe. Rats alone have caused enormous damage. We've also unleashed a few non-GMO hybrids, such as those lovely Africanized "killer" bees. Escaped GMOs will just add to the stew of organisms invading ecosystems worldwide, and I suspect that when they make their appearance on the scene, they'll have some stiff competition. If GMOs do have defects or liabilities(unknown or otherwse), they will very likely play a big role in their ability to spread. Never underestimate the ability of bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc to adapt to new prey in the wild. It won't take bio-crackers to engineer GMO-killing plagues. They'll emerge on their own.
A scenario akin to that which you mentioned in White Death could potentially occur using techniques more primitive than genetic engineering. Again, just take a look at Africanized bees.
I'm not a lawyer or biologist, but it may be interesting to compare this issue to what's going on in the software industry. There are some clear similarities between genetic code (the blueprint for lifeforms) and software code (the instructions that define a computer program).
"I'm not a stoner or a druggie, but it may be interesting to compare this issue to what's going on in the medical industry. There are some clear similarities between medicine administration (the drugs that cure our common aches and pains) and hemp, cocaine, and crank (the drugs that put us in a ephoric state)."
Give me a break, anyone who has no knowledge of the fields they speak of usually doesn't understand the true issues at hand. This blog is near worthless, IMHO.
He saved the seed from his own fields. How was he supposed to seperate out the Roundup-ready contaminated stuff?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Sure, we shouldn't confuse source code with genetic code. But the metaphor can be useful.
The genetic code of EVERY species on this planet has been subjected to, and is still being subjected to, extremely rigorous testing. By far, most of the genetic code that is tested doesn't get included in the next version. This has been going on for more than three billion years, and the resulting code base is extremely robust.
We should all be wary of attempts to deploy genetic code that has not been tested through the evolutionary process. Particularly since (and this is where the software metaphor breaks down) engineered genes can reproduce out of human control, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Don Doumakes
What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation? Should life be Open Source?
What, so Wheat 2.0's team of volunteer geneticists can rush out a quick patch? And would you like user-contributions to be in the form of digital sequences, or would you rather have us do a little quick PCR with the live stuff and ship you a test tube full of DNA?
Living organisms are open source already. Given the necessary hardware and the accompanying wads of cash, you can crack open any nucleus you want and sequence its chromosomes until the cows come home. Sure, it's uncommented, but it's not like Monsanto is sponsoring an annual obfuscated protein sequence contest, and if you're allergic to uncommented code, Open Source is definitely not your cup of tea.
If you're really concerned about engineered agricultural diseases, you might want to consider the solution that 3.8 billion years of evolution came up with: genetic diversity. If you don't have three midwestern states entirely covered with the same clones, it's going to be much, much harder to obliterate the whole crop.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Ok, so where are all you proud Canadians? Come on you chicken-shit motherfuckers, stand up and take your medicine.
Dont you find irony in calling others "chicken-shit" far away from a computer?
Another clause: You're not allowed to show this letter to anyone and you're not allowed to tell anyone that you've received this letter from Monsanto or what Monsanto has done to you. So, a total suppression of farmers rights, freedom of speech and expression. (about the extortion letters)
yeah, this might be something written in the letter but everyone with two brains to rub together knows that extortion is illegal and a clause in a letter does not make it a legally binding document, except in the case where it says that the information is confidential and patented. last i checked, threats did not fall into that category.
and he might have been a farmer for many years, but i took biology. i can name a number of dominant genes which haven't taken over the world.
-ninjaneer
This analogy is very misleading; with software, a worm that takes out half the net--say, blaster--causes temporary damage. Many people never even noticed blaster. In meatspace, a virus that took out all of the US's wheat would cause mass starvation and civil disorder.
In other words in software we have the luxury of assuming that failure is inevitable and planning out how to fix future failures; in meatspace you absolutely must prevent catastrophic failure or you might not get a second chance.
It's definitely true that we're not far from being in a world where a reasonably smart person can make a doomsday virus, and it's important to think about these issues beforehand, but I think this line of reasoning is misleading.
Not exactly. The court found that some of the seeds he was saving and planting (not at all an odd or unnatural activity for the farmer) contained monsanto's genes. They also decided that he "ought to have known" that the genes were in his saved seed. They did not rule that he did know and deliberately concealed it nor did they rule that he was fraudulately using it.
So his version of events, knowing the supreme court's decision does not fall. I would argue that the points he makes about cross-pollination are entirely valid whether you like him personally or not.
I mean what the hell is going on here? In my opinion, COPYRIGHTS for scientific information goes against the whole concept of science. Furthermore, there is no possible justification for the exclusive use of ANY scientific information or patents for any scientific discovery or engineering feat that accepts ANY public funding. I paid for that. I should be able to use it.
You heard me pharmacutical industry.
This idea that genes can somehow be patented is ludacrous. I'm fine with patenting a way to see the genes or a way to make the genes. I may not be able to see my own genes or the genes of a stalk of wheat. That doesn't mean they belong exclusively to you if you can. Even if you create a plant or animal entirely from scratch, the genes belong to that plant or animal first.
Hey Mr. Wheat Stalk, do you have any objections to the free distribution of your genetic code? Speak now, or forever hold your piece.
You should not be able to patent a concept or any generic product, but how can you defend patenting anything that exists in the wild.
Take an example of rubber. You can patent a machine that extracts the rubber from a tree, and I'm fine with that. You shoud not be able to patent the idea of extracting rubber from a tree. Now people think you should be able to patent the tree's rubber.
What are we coming to? Why are we allowing this to happen?
So... He was supposed to destroy the seed from his own land and change the way he farmed because it had been contaminated by Monsanto's genes drifting in the breeze? Sounds like he has grounds for a damage suit.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
What your comment suggests is that this man should incur an extra expense every year of testing the seeds for cross polination, rather than go about farming as he always has.
How would you like to be forced by a Supreme Court ruling to pay to test the grass in your front yard because someone in the vicinity of 0-100 miles from your house created and patented their own grass.. a cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia? You shouldn't be forced to incur that expense because some irresponsible person allowed their grass to be cross polinated or simply to be carried as seed in the belly of a bird, and neither should he.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
.. but you apparently failed to take "common sense". I suggest you visit some areas of the US south, were kudzu is literally burying things, despite enough spraying and mechanical removal leading to soil exposure and erosion to completely contaminate underground aquifers. You can NOT get rid of it unless you resort to truly garganutan efforts, literally declare chemical warfare on your area. Or go look at some lakes that have been decimated by carp, hardly a species left in them of the fishes that isn't carp. Now add in human intervention to make certain genes even MORE dominant than even nature and natural selection provides. Now add in their ability to go cross species, GM tech, and their complete willingness to do so, and their mindset of "to hell with the consequences as long as we might make some short term profit in it or get a research grant so we don't need to get a another job..". None of these people truly know the long term consequences, yet they release these products, and they WILL spread.
It's ignorant and uneducated smugness like yours in the scientific and corporate world that is GOING TO CAUSE some pretty bad effects in a few years time. I hope you remember your post when that happens. If you are aware of biology, have you heard of starlink corn yet? If you can't see the irony in reading his personal account, and others, about how canola that has been GM modified is now classed as a "superweed" and IS taking over all over the north, and exactly how it is affecting people and the economy, then you need to turn your degree back in. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance in a college graduate.
And it's not "just a threat" if it COMES TRUE. He got screed, shafted, cost him thousands, destroyed 50 years work. What do you mean "they can't do that" they JUST DID DO THAT. And they suceeded in scaring any number of other people off just with the threat of litigation. I call that legal extortion. Extortion = a threat to make you do something you wouldn't normally do because the other guy has something on you. In this case, it's the paid off corrupt system that has "something on" the farmers-either go along and be monsantos patsy and whore, and shutup about it, OR ELSE. That's extortion, no other word for it.
...area of his previous crops that proved extremely resistant to Roundup. ...he did not use Roundup...
How did he figure out if it was resistant to Roundup if he didn't use it?
Ewige Blumenkraft.
Unfortunately the business model of closed source genetics promotes monocultures. As I commented in April's story Smart Breeding to Beat Biotechnology:
"the overall problem with current biotechnology is that it is proprietary / closed source / locked hood genetics. The applications might be wonderful, but the methodology and implementations leave a lot to be desired if you like open source science.
Just like with proprietary software, if you see some nifty new feature you'd like to add you your own application, you can't. In proprietary software you can't just buy the algorithm: you have to buy the whole package (and perhaps the support package and perhaps the computer to run it on). In much of current biotechnology you can't just buy the nifty new gene, you have to buy the whole potato (and you only get a limited choice of potato types if any choice at all) *and* you're just leasing the potato *and* you have to keep buying the upgrades each year. Smart Breeding, in contrast, is a close equivalent of open source software."
Ways in which Locked-hood genetics is like proprietary software:
As I just referenced from telling good patents from bad patents:
Patenting an old solution (yellow colored beans) to an old problem (how to make yellow colored beans)? Extaordinarily stupid patent. Similarly there is the patent for the bacterial BT gene put into plants. BT is an old (and open source / farming) solution to a problem (how to get a toxin to kill pest insects). The "new" problem was how to get plants to express that same gene / toxin. All they did was move an old algorithm into a new situation and they get a patent.Its as if Microsoft got a patent for GUIs simply by moving them from Xerox or Mac machines into IBM machines. Or in the case of the Neem or Yellow Bean patents, its like Microsoft got a patent on Babbage engines or Turing machines- simply because the original work had been done in other countries.
Sounds like the technique used to determine if someone was a witch way back in medieval times, where they used to tie heavy objects to a suspect of witchcraft, then throw her in a pond. If she drowned, she was not a witch, but if she didn't drown, she was...
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Note, this doesn't mean that copyrights would no longer exist, etc., but it does mean that all intellectual property rights would permanently expire, say, five years after applied for. This includes patents and copyrights. I guess it makes sense for trademarks to last as long as the entity that creates them exists. Oooooooooooooooh well.