Slashdot Mirror
Patents and Open Source Biotech
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."
Takes you to the second page of the article. For those who like to skip to the end I guess. first page
word
.cig
Exclude living systems and their components (e.g., genes) from the patent system. Period. End of story.
... 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.
For those who whine, "But then there won't be any incentive to innovate!"
If the suits want to make a profit, they'll have to work a little harder to figure out how. Watch me weep in sympathy.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Viva la revelotion , capitalist running-dog pharmacorps!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Ok, and how do you suppose biotech devices to be open source? Oh boy! Now we have to look forward to programmed HIV viruses...
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
Is copyright killing culture? Some documentary filmmakers certainly think so.
Interestingly, you can download sizable chunks of the gene sequences for cows, chickens, humans, the SARS virus... Clearly, the researchers who have made such information available are Communists, for not protecting their IP rights and demanding the first-born from all who would see such information.
Pathetic. The bulk of serious research is done in an open environment. If you want to see quality, verifiable, useful information, you don't look in the patent office. You look up the research papers that have been published and are either freely available or damn cheap.
To the best of my knowledge, the only person known to have successfully learned something from patents was Einstein. But if you look at his best work, you look at the thought experiments, the observations of the ordinary, the stuff that is simply not ownable. THAT is where Real Science and Real R&D takes place.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's the worst thing we're doing, allowing patents on genetic coding and other areas relating to biology. Imagine if someone discovered a gene that 100% determines whether or not a person gets alzheimers. So the person patents it and subsequently refuses to let anyone else work on drugs that would affect the protein produced by the gene. In the years before the patent expires, a cure could have already been found.
My example is poor because genes that influence alzheimers have been found already, but it's just for sake of argument.
Another example, previously featured on slashdot, is genetically modified seeds. What if seeds from a field of grain blow onto yours and you end up with the genetically modified grains or what have you, and you're sued for "stealing" it. It's an actual possibility, and it's MADNESS.
An acid is a chemical.
Chemicals cannot be patented.
What's going on here?
What am I missing?
...when we still have public funding on all this proprietary patent work? A _true_ fiscal conservative republican would funnel the country's money into development that encourages an open and competitive market place. If people want to use their own private money to gamble on patents then that's fine, but not public money!
Seems to me, we're putting money into public research that feeds private pockets in an unfair way...
Is the prez just trying to promote his religion in the guise of conservatism?
I don't know, just asking...
Nothing should ever be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.
Unless I wrote or invented it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Interesting. I'd like to know what fellow slashdot users think of the World Community Grid on these bio patent issues.
1 problem.
Is a Virus living?
What about bacteria?
What about the single protein that causes CJD?
What about a pint of beer, or some new way of making a plastic that uses designer bacteria in the process.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Usually they patent the method of producing the drug not the drug itself.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Biotech != Software
Le français vous intéresse?
Once again.. capitalism and peoples lives, don't mix.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Here's an article quite:
BIOS will soon launch an open-source platform that promises to free up rights to patented DNA sequences and the methods needed to manipulate biological material.
I thought you can't patent DNA sequences, only processes on sequences. Gene patents without specific purposes were thrown out years ago, weren't they?
I understand why methods are being patented. They are costly to develop. They aren't obvious. Without patents, I'm not sure what the desire is to invent a new method to cheaply assay something.
My work uses data very similar to sequence data (genotype data), and the data gathering process has become a commodity over the last few years. Everyone's developed their own machines, methodologies, and patents. You can sign up with any of these guys, and essentially the bottom line is: cents / data point. You weight that in against the size of the batches you're planning on doing over the next number of years, the reliability and service provided by the company's platform, and go.
These companies would not be innovating newer, cheaper solutions if I could just take those solutions back to the lab and they didn't earn a penny for their effort. As it is, these companies are working on slim margins, and not many of the startups are successful.
In the past, before these companies came out with their turnkey solutions, we'd have to roll our own. And that means detection systems, possibly robots, databases, protocols for chemical processes, etc.
When I worked in the lab, we did one of these, based on a paper that was published in 1999. Even standing on the back of another researcher, it took us 18 months to have a working assay system that was 'production ready' for JUST OUR LAB (granted, it's the MIT genome center, and we're a big-ass lab.) Just about the time we finished, the first decent turn key solution came out...and it was cheaper and easier than what we'd developed.
I love what I do for a living. It's a good time, and interesting work. Would I do it for free, if I had to work a normal job?
No way. This job alone takes huge amounts of time, outside research, etc to excel. If I wasn't compensated for my hard work, I'd have no time to *do* that hard work.
(given all that, we're working on open-sourcing chunks of our source code, to at least give something back to the community - but source code is the least of our assets.)
our bodies contain already contain all our chromosomes and genes, forcing scientists to pay a royalty to research something we already contain is the height of patent maddnesss...they didnt create something new... it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.
Just wait until they crack down on people sharing their patented DNA in anonymous P2P singles bars!
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."
sebFlyte continued:
It's very interesting. I'm interested to see what interesting direcitons may be taken if these patent holders are interested in furthuring this interesting branch of research for the good of humanity.
(all in good fun)
Your brain is not a computer.
I was probably incredibly naive to have thought that patents did not prevent scientific research. At least in centers paid by the government...
This whole patent business often make me doubt democracy where the representatives are betraying or failing us (the people) while the people (exept us?) don't notice...
I'm not even going to bother to try and be persuasive here. Let me just lay it on the line:
Dickcheeses, pharma companies are the ones who develop new drugs. Not university or government researchers. The industry as a whole spent well over $30 billion last year on R&D developing new drugs. That's more than the TOTAL NIH budget. If researchers discover a new molecule that looks promising as a treatment for a disease they PATENT it. Even if they don't work for a company. Why? Because they want a company to license it and make a drug out of it.
If there are no patents on the molecule NO company will touch it. That means NO drug. That means NO new cures for diseases.
It is outrageously expensive to develop a drug (estimates run from 800 million to 1.7 billion per drug.) Where is the money going to come from if there are no patents around to protect a company so it can make some money on the drug? Huh?
Patents only last 20 years. It takes 2 years to get a molecule/protein patented. It takes about ten years to develop and test a drug based on that molecule or protein. That means the company has to make all its >$1 billion back in about eight years before the patent expires and the generics take over.
This is a simple fact - if a new potential drug is not patented it will never be developed and no new CURE. Think about it, you open-source silly-people. What may work in developing software does not work in developing drugs.
This program seems to do a good job of providing a framework for inventors/discoverers to decide what rights they can assign related to their inventions/discoveries. In many cases, though, abdicating exclusive rights to a discovery would amount to ensuring that the fruits of your research never do any actual good -- sure redundant or obvious software patents inhibit advances in computing fields. But biotech patents, even if they're based on our own DNA, are essential if any biotech-based cure is ever to make it to market.
It's one thing for a scientist (or programmer) to have donated his time and creativity and renounce the rights to patent from his discovery. It's quite another to hope that pharmaceutical companies will forfeit their rights to exclusivity, plant workers will donate their time to manufacture, shippers will donate space on their trucks, attorneys will donate their time to ensure regulatory approval, and investors will look the other way while it happens. It's fine to argue that patents hinder innovation in a lot of sectors -- but in biotech, given the expense incurred getting anything to the point where it could treat/cure anyone, GPLing a promising discovery will ensure that it will never benefit anyone.
Case in point: we've known for decades that "good" cholesterol helps cancel out bad cholesterol and prevent arterial plaque from accumulating. Why not just put "good cholesterol" in a pill? Because it's a commodity. Everyone can do it, so no one does. Instead you have drugs like statins that do the same thing in a much more roundabout way -- and everyone is worse of because of it.
Always a godfather; never a god. -Gore Vidal
Research in biotech is promising, but how much should be made opensource. No company is sacred and it can be misused. Biotech is another double edge sowrd which can be played either way. Do we want to find cure to deadly disease or start the next generation of bio-war ? Who should hold authority on the information and access to these ? Where should the control point be ? Shouldn't ethical issues related to science come into picture earlier ?
My personal favorite : Discovery of fire. Did we had a panel at that time where we discussed to continue using fire to cook food and keep ourselves warn. Did we stopped using fire thinking that it can be use in form of firearm ? But you don't want to give fire in everyone's hand and we know the consequences.
Freedom always comes with the price and we should evaluate it carefully.
BIOTECH IS GODZILLA. I wonder if anyone will know what this is from.
"But he believes human health, safety and standards of living will all suffer under the present patent structure."
I think it's about time more poeple started taking this view. I wish more would take it, and soon. I can certainly understand a large corporation's desire to protect the investment(s) they've made in researching and developing their patented material, but to do so at the cost of human lives is going too far. If they're just sitting on the patents, then I think somebody (or a few somebodies) need to be dragged down to the parking lot of their corporate office and beaten...severely. But in all fairness, I'm sure that the issue is far more complicated than it appears in the article. For instance some of the data that BIOS want's released may be integrated in less obvious ways with patented data that they aren't asking for. Discoveries are sometimes fickle like that. It's also possible that the company may already be working on similar areas of research. In a situation like that, I honestly couldn't blame the company from withholding that information. With that much rolled up in a project, it would be far beyond stupid for them to just hand all the data over to competition. I would like to think that in the case of medical research or other fields in which millions or even the whole world could benefit, companies (and people in general) would take a more benevolent attitude, but I'm trying to be realistic. Other than those, I really can't think of a good reason for them to try to fight against it. Of course, 'good reason' does not include greed, which seems to be the only motivation for anything corporations do anymore. And if you ask me, that's a LOT of what's wrong with the world today.
But if the company agrees, they could stand a lot to gain from sharing the information if they played their cards right. Strike a bargain, man. Give access to limited research personel, with the agreement that findings derived from its use be shared with the company. If the scientists don't find anything, they've not really lost anything. If they do make a breakthrough, now they have rights and access to cutting edge research and technology that they didn't even have to pay a dime for. Scientists get the credit, both get the data, and the company uses it to get money. Seems to me that everyone wins. On the side, they could probably create tax write-offs for donating to non-profit and even if they couldn't it would be great PR. "BLABLABLA Enterprises, sharing excelence for a better world..." or something like that. You know, kinda like the plastic commercials.
"Some fear that making the latest methods of genetic modification public will provide terrorists with the know-how to concoct new bioweapons in the comfort of their own garage. "Biological knowledge can be used for good or ill and unfortunately it's easier to make a biological weapon than it is defenses,"
That's a very good point that I don't think many people consider when they think of researching medicine. But it's a real threat, and certainly not something that I'd relish sharing with terrorists. So far they haven't done tinkering with things unwholesome yet (wish our governments could say the same), and that may be in part due to the advanced equipment I would imagine is necessary to manipulate something like anthrax at the genetic level. However, I still can't discount that as a legitimate concern. Restricting access would definitely cut down the risk of the information falling into the wrong hands, monitoring and other methods would also help. But nothing is going to keep a determined individual(s) from getting to something they want bad enough. Ultimately, it comes down to whether we are going to fight to help the world or let terror win by cowing us into doing nothing.Please be kind, I am new to this.
its true that the US congress has gone a bit far in extending patent rights (first drugs had 5 year patents, then 10, and now some have 15 years). this has created high drug prices and, to some extent, diminished (short term) competition between drug companies. patents are important, though, because drug companies have to profit from making drugs.
the academic scientific apparatus is very good at doing basic research but not so good at capitalizing on potential products. what we need is a sane balance between access to intellectual property and ownership rights. this balance should ultimately benefit us, the citizens (not corporations or governments)
Much the same could be said of Newton's/Descarte's Laws of Motion. The thinking was novel, but the constructs were very basic.
About the biggest reason the ancient Greeks didn't have all of the above, two thousand years ago, was that they weren't into experimentation. Very few practical experiments seem to have been carried out, with most of their science being based in philosophical constructs.
With no hard data to validate their theories against, they were pretty limited on how far they could have progressed. They did do some experiments, so they clearly had the concept of experimental science, they just don't seem to have thought much of it.
Quantum Mechanics, wave/particle duality, interference patterns, the Michaelson-Moreley experiment, etc, required technology that was beyond them, so those things could not have developed significantly sooner.
How does this relate to the original topic? Easy. Confining thought/research into narrow channels is what defeated the Greeks. Twice. Against the Romans and against the Christians. Narrow thinking really does kill. Bounds and limits are reasonable, but stifling thought is not. Patents are killing research, figuratively, but if allowed to continue out of control, they will kill society for real.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I read that as Patents and Open Source Biatch.
Now, sure, you could argue that DNA's hardware, since it's directly interacting rather than being reinterpreted as instructions. But that just makes it firmware. It can still be re-written "on-the-fly" and you could go on living with slightly modified DNA. So the law should (and does) match the laws pertaining to software. It just happens that both sets of laws suck, though.
Changa hates change.
Patents and Open Source, Biotch!
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Given all you know about genetics.
Does a virus have the 'potential' for life, e.g. could it one day develop into a multicell organism.
Personally I take the mirror image view on life and say that everyone and thing is just a collection of particles and life is just an electro-chemical reaction.
That's why I talk to my computer, one day it will be alive.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Sounds like a bit of a troll to me but I'll bite.
First, noone said that scientists shouldn't be paid or even whether there should be a profit motive - that's an entire straw man - the question is whether the advancement of science is hindered or helped by the presence of patents. I would argue that patents hinder biotech and also that you can make money without patents - you just have be more clever than being the first to stake out your claim.
Let us take a look at your example - your assay procedure. From what I read, you had to spend time developing an assay system because no good commercial solutions existed. Therefore when a superior commercial solution finally came about, you conclude that patents are a good thing because they motivated the development of a better cheaper assay. Of course, had the process not been patentable you wouldn't have been that much worse off since you had your own assay anyway. Also, from what I gather, the motivation from the switch has as much to do with convenience as quality of the assay for which there would likely still be commercial turnkey solutions. Waters makes money selling HPLC systems even though HPLC is not patented because they do it better than you can. But let us say that patenting the procedure is the only way it could be made sufficiently profitable for someone to spend the time to make it work well. The downside is that no further development of the process (which may or may not have been a trivial enhancement of the open source one), without having to worry about infringements. That is a pretty big downside esp considering that their methodology was based upon the work of another publically funded researcher.
When I worked at the bench, we had to buy our Taq polymerase commercially, not because it was difficult (it was trivial) but because of the patent on the procedure. This is what I have a problem with - patents used to enforce exclusivity of procedures that any well equipped lab could otherwise do.
Now back to the profit motive. We write open source software for bioinformatics and structural biology. That doesn't mean that if it turns out to be successful that we couldn't profit off of it - as long as the software is truly useful and the ideas are truly difficult to expand upon then there will always be a demand for someone who understands it, no matter where that code is. That is, of course as long as no one is able to copy, make minor modifications, and patent the idea...
Just another gentle reminder that Open Source is indeed communist at its heart and that the principles of open scientific research, libre software and communism are generally the same.
Another quote:
It's about helping the people, not about raising venture capital or making it big on NASDAQ.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.