Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patents and Open Source Biotech

Posted by michael on from the my-new-asian-bird-flu-technique-is-unstoppable dept.

sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."

4 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Nice linking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Takes you to the second page of the article. For those who like to skip to the end I guess. first page

  2. Same thing happening in film/media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


    Is copyright killing culture? Some documentary filmmakers certainly think so.

  3. Re:DNA is an acid. by Icarus1919 · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not true, every prescription drug is a chemical and they can certainly be patented. Where did you get the idea that chemicals can't be patented? Even different combinations of chemicals can be patented, take for instance sodas. All fairly simple ingredients, but clearly a patentable product.

  4. Re:Simple solution ... by Glyphn · · Score: 4, Informative
    For those who whine, "But then there won't be any incentive to innovate!" ... GMAFB. Innovation in biotech (and in pretty much every technical field) is done by scientists, not moneymen. And the scientists will continue to do their jobs, whether for prestige or a desire to aid their fellow man or just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Most of them will do it, BTW, in university labs, not corporate "R&D" shops, just the way they always have.

    Universities provide a necessary infusion of discoveries and methodologies into biotech, but that's about as far as I can agree with you.

    Couple of random comments:

    Don't put scientists on pedestals. Scientists, collectively, are not motivated by sheer intellectual curiosity or altruism. Any number of them are conniving bastards willing to stick it to the Ph.D. next door so long as their pub gets out first or their grant gets funded. In the upper echelons of university research, the bastard to altruist ratio gets pretty high. In general, they're just human beings, no better or worse than the guy working the counter at your local convenience store.

    Biotech data is expensive: Properly designed, decently powered studies often exceed the pocketbook of government funding agencies. As such, many of the academic research papers in biotech involve rehashes and re-analyses of the same data sets over and over. This is not by choice; it's simply a consequence of their being unable to do more. Industry is a major player in biotech, and has been for a very long time (can anyone say Taq polymerase?).