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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?