Michael Crichton on Why Gene Patents Are Bad

BayaWeaver writes "Michael Crichton, author of The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park has made a strong case against gene patents in an op-ed for the New York Times. Striking an emotional chord, he begins with 'You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's only too real.' From there, he moves on to use logic, statistics, and his way with words to make his point. Arguing against the high costs of gene therapies thanks to related patents, he eventually offers hope that one day legislation will de-incentivize the hoarding of scientific knowledge. As he points out: 'When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it — because of patent concerns. There is no clearer indication that gene patents block innovation, inhibit research and put us all at risk.'"

Comments

I wish that he had written this earlier.

[WindBourne]

Since his anti Global Warming book, he no longer appears to be as popular. In fact, I would guess that that little bit of political foley probably cost him dearly. Now, he comes up with something intelligent and I suspect that it will be easy for others to cast doubt on his arguments.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[eln]

Of course it's easy to cast doubt on his arguments. If genes were not patentable, John Hammond would not have been able to patent all of that dinosaur DNA, and we would have had even more dinosaur-inhabited islands out there. There simply aren't enough cynical mathematicians out there to protect us against people building more of these parks. More people could have been senselessly killed in dinosaur attacks.

Fact: Gene patents save lives.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[rayvd]

To the contrary. He's been a tremendous voice of sanity against the ever increasing "church" of global warming. Of course, he's labeled a buffoon by those who prefer to run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

An article on a topic like this just lends credence to the fact that this is a thoughtful man who does his research -- better than many "scientists" out there who are simply going where the government $$ is.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Goaway]

Do you also complain about the "church" of heliocentrism or the "church" of the germ theory of disease? Stop projecting your own ignorance of science onto those who actually do know things.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[SatanicPuppy]

Nothing like having someone who is proven to have no intellectual credibility take up a position that you agree with. This is an unfortunate one as well, because it directly affects drug and biotech firms, and they are all serious patent offenders with deep pockets. They'll tear him apart as a proven intellectual pimp, and it'll hurt the whole damn issue.

Crichton's popularity or lack thereof has more to do with the abysmal crap he's been writing than with his ridiculous stance on global warming...Did you read Prey? What a crapfest. The evil nanotech clouds are defeated by spraying them with a mysterious gunk infection that had somehow infiltrated into the cleanrooms where they were manufactured, but which, magically, didn't effect them when they're out roaming around in the fricking world.

He was great once, but it's been a long time.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[armb]

No, no. The problem was that not being able to patent it, he had to keep it all a secret. If he'd patented it, then published, a few cynical mathematicians could say "wouldn't it be better to have a power reset where the fast-moving carnivorous dinosaurs _can't_ get at it" from a safe distance on the mainland, there would be no need to have the entire security system relying on one greedy guy with no review system, and no-one would need to get eaten at all.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[lymond01]

You must've read his book. You found it in the fiction section of the bookstore. You might try various news sources if you're looking for something closer to fact.

Michael Crichton's a smart guy who wrote a work of fiction based on current science, politics, and the underlying fear of global warming. He's in the same category as Tom Clancy and John Grisham. He's doing it for the money, and I daresay he's doing it for more money than any global warming researcher as most research money is ear-marked for defense (I work at a University, so take my word on this).

If you start hyping his fiction as reality, you're just asking to get picked on.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's because, as Americans, we're a bunch of dullards created by marketing.

What a liberal education should have taught us, is that it's not the person, but the message. We need to stop and reason out if an idea is sound. Unfortunately, too many of us have lost sight of that: it's easy to be stupid after one graduates.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[DrLang21]

I suspect that it will be easy for others to cast doubt on his arguments.

You mean how we can either have freely traded scientific knowledge, OR we can have a highly regulated medical industry to prevent bad medicine from making it to patients? We can't have it both ways. The state of the heavily regulated industry makes patents necessary for a drug company or medical devices company to not go bankrupt from trying to get their products approved.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[0xdeadbeef]

It wasn't that the attacked global warming. It's that he attacked global warming with a ridiculously stupid book full of straw men and inane moralizing. He's got this anti-environmentalist chip on his shoulder which is completely at odds with the "don't play god" theme prevalent in many of his other books.

This is what I learned from State of Fear: mankind can't possibly be causing global warming, because nature is too good at achieving equilibrium for the whole of human industry to affect it. That's why a few dozen hippies with some mining equipment have to create tsunamis to make it seem real, utilizing the principle that nature is fragile and subtle changes can have widespread effects. Wait, what..?

Which reminds me of the other pet "debunking" of people like Crichton: all the Malthusian predictions of catastrophe caused by population explosion where chicken little nonsense, because the "green revolution" gave us the means to feed them all, and for that, the scientists are heroes for saving millions of lives, you know, because people would have otherwise starved (because of the population explosion).

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[IflyRC]

Nothing like having someone who is proven to have no intellectual credibility take up a position that you agree with.

Are we speaking on Michael Crichton or Al Gore?

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[0xdeadbeef]

So which church do you belong to?

The church of global warming can't be real because God would not allow it?
The church of global warming can't be real because humanity is not as powerful as nature?
The church of global warming is not a problem because technology will save us?

It takes far more faith to dismiss the risk of global warming than it does to recognize it.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[SatanicPuppy]

Did Al Gore write Prey? I had no idea!

You can always pick out the whackjob conservatives because, to them, Al Gore invented Global Warming. You can just feel the "I hate Al Gore" vibe.

But that's just a bit dated now. W talked about Global Climate change in his State of the Union. More than a hundred countries world wide have acknowledged that there is something to the issue, and thousands of scientists have piled up mountains of data supporting the hypothesis that the climate is changing, and it is widely accepted that human activity has something to do with it.

So grow a brain. This is science, not politics, and just because your "team" doesn't believe in science doesn't mean it ain't true.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Since his anti Global Warming book, he no longer appears to be as popular.

Among raving looney environmentalists, no, but he's still successful. If anything, he's being proven correct due to the anti-greenhouse-gases backlash that's been forming this week among prominent scientists (several more stories about it today in the media).

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[roystgnr]

John Hammond would not have been able to patent all of that dinosaur DNA, and we would have had even more dinosaur-inhabited islands out there.

That's too horrific to imagine! There could be a series of Jurassic Park after Jurassic Park, each one worse than the last...

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at an alternative viewpoint. I'm not a climate scientist (or a "raving looney environmentalist") but even I can see this so-called alternative viewpoint is kinda flawed; I'll paraphrase:

Global warming is caused by increased solar activity, and scientifically proven ozone depletion has nothing to do with it.

That's not an alternative view, it's just ignoring the available evidence. There's no dispute about CFC emissions (greenhouse gases) contributing to ozone depletion. Anyway, here are more "alternative" viewpoints for you, do have fun!

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[tfried]

The pharmacy sector may well be unique market, in that developing new products is incredibly expensive, mostly due to the testing needed. You are right about that (though in the particular case of gene patents, this statement often does not apply).

Patents are a solution to this problem, and in many instances the only one available at this time. So simply doing away with pharmacy patents without replacement probably isn't a good idea, either. You're right about this, too.

This still leaves the question, of whether patents are a *good* solution to the problem at hand. There are many reasons to believe they are not. Thoese includes ethical concerns, and concerns about the efficiency in ensuring innovation (for one interesting example, see http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/1 7/1913210 for a case where innovation is seriously hindered, because it simply doesn't fit into a patent concept). Realizing this does not immediately render pharmacy patents obsolete, but it's an important first step.

The follow up question is, what an alternative could look like, and that's not an easy one. It's one we should seriously consider, however, since there are *real* problems with pharmacy patents. Approaches to consider might include trying to set up a fund that will pay a "bounty" to whichever company first produces an approved effective medication for a certain disease. Something like this could even be implemented on top of the patent system for a start, e.g. by encouraging companies to jointly establish such a fund, patent the results, but agree to share all the patents stemming from this system without any further royalities. Governments could promise additional bounties for cases where new effective treatments can not be covered by patents. Then, if it seems to work out, the patent backing could eventually be removed.

Well, that's just one wild idea, and could well turn out to be entirely impractical on closer investigation. But again: Patents *are* bad. We should acknowledge that fact, and then move on to at least *trying* to come up with alternatives.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[ravenshrike]

At odds? Really? Cause looking at the enviro's agenda there seems to be one hell of a lot of 'playing god'. They want to play god with the worlds economies in order to stop something that may or may not even be happening. What's more, when asked of how to actually stop the problem, which, if real and as major as they're screaming, simply cutting emmisions won't, they answer either they have no clue(the correct answer) or that people will come up with a way and implement it.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Rei]

Heh, I'm glad I stopped reading his stuff ages ago. This isn't something new; ever read Andromeda Strain? I love how the entire species of disease collectively mutates *all at once* into a rubber eating species. If that's not a horrible understanding of biology, I don't know what is.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Znork]

"makes patents necessary"

You mistake cause and effect. Patents, like all monopolies, result in extremely inefficient organisations. The pharmaceutical industry is no exception; the vast (80%) of patent derived revenue goes to marketing, administration and (compared to the pharma-cloners) inefficient production (a cost structure vastly different from other less protected industries, where the cost-to-produce is the major part of the price).

Patents are not necessary because the costs are high; the costs are high because patent protection make them so. We'd get five times as much medical research done for the same cost to the economy as we have today if we outright just paid for it, and let the cloners do the production competetively.

So, yes, we can have it both ways. The current model is simply grossly inappropriate and wastes such amounts of resources that it has to be torn down and restructured from scratch to make it possible.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[mrchaotica]

There is another possibility: the church of "I won't believe in global warming until it's proven experimentally (but what I don't realize is that by then it'll be to late)."

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[inca34]

Then comes FUD to the rescue. Truth is finite, FUD is infinite. Sucks, don't it?

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Specter]

No Al Gore invented the Internet, remember?

I think it's funny that /.'ers generally consider GWB to be an idiot UNLESS he's talking about Global Warming. Now he's an authority to reference in support of GW. Hmm GWB... GW... look even the first two letters are the same. There's another link!

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[um... Lucas]

Are you saying that State of Fear wasn't intelligent?

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[gfxguy]

Well, then, you didn't learn a whole lot because, especially in the appendices, he doesn't deny global warming and he doesn't deny that mankind has nothing to do with it.

As for using "mining" equipment to cause Tsunamis, the book IS a work of fiction, and it's not more ridiculous than creating dinosaurs by mixing what's left of ancient DNA with frog DNA.

The book is the book, it was a work of fiction and it was quite good. He does state some facts in the book, and he backs them up in the appendices. You can accuse him of cherry-picking his data, but that's not different than what many scientists have done during this "debate", first of all, and second of all, nobody takes him seriously as an environmental scientist.

So what's worse; someone presenting cherry-picked data as scientific evidence in a report to, say, the U.N., or someone cherry-picking data for his fictional book?

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[DrLang21]

This still does not address the issue of the cost of FDA approval. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see it be unneccesary for drug companies to utilize the cut throat and protectionist tactics that they do. However, it has to be realized that the high amount of regulation of pharmacuticals that we have is at the very least a very significant factor in the high cost of new drugs and the protectionist methods used. No drug company wants to fork out millions of dollars to get a new drug approved that they have developed for millions of dollars only to have a generic come out a year later from a company that spent a small amount figuring out how to manufacture the drug and a fraction of what they paid to get their brand of the drug approved because it had already been approved once. This results in the first to market company getting royally screwed. I truely would love to see a solution to the problem. Though I personally don't believe that it can be done without downscaling the regulation of the medical industry. Eradication of patents on pharmacuticals in the current state of the industry would just result in a stagnation of development because there would be no reward for being the first with a new treatment.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[SatanicPuppy]

I still think he's an idiot, but I reference him as kind of a conservative bellwether: "Even this moron who is as conservative as they come thinks that this crap is happening! You should too!"

Come right down to it, the anti-science conservatives are really just a big personality cult, so pointing out that their little cult is coming into line with everyone else ought to help out a little bit.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[zippthorne]

Heliocentrism is as naive compared to current knowledge of astronomy, mechanics, and relativity as geocentrism was to heliocentrism. If there are people who extol its universal correctness, then they are science-worshipers rather than scientists.

Much of modern society has become science-ologists who believe in the Truth as presented by clergy clothed in vestments of white labcoats. People who give no heed (out of intellectual laziness, belief that they aren't smart enough, some fundamental confusion accidentally introduced by well-meaning educators and other reasons) to the principles of science, namely the so-called scientific method.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[zippthorne]

What are you talking about? The very first thing it did (in the narrative, chronologically, it destroyed the town first) was eat through all the organic materials in the overflying jet. It did magically evolve into "safe-for-humans" pretty quickly, but it didn't gain any abilities it didn't at the beginning.

Also, based on the interludes, I gather we were expected to believe it was a (possibly broken) Von Neumann machine, possibly with collective intelligence and the ability to alter itself.

I'd say the most unbelievable part was the suggestion that it would be nuclear-bomb proof.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[thrillseeker]

he's being proven correct due to the anti-greenhouse-gases backlash that's been forming this week among prominent scientists (several more stories about it today in the media).

Publications with solid reputations such as the Wall Street Journal are not of interest to the Algoracolytes ...

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[shmlco]

"So what's worse; someone presenting cherry-picked data as scientific evidence in a report to, say, the U.N., or someone cherry-picking data for his fictional book?"

How about someone cherry-picking intelligence data to support the conquest of Iraq?

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Goaway]

And the relevance of this little tirade of yours was...?

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Xonstantine]

Do you also complain about the "church" of heliocentrism or the "church" of the germ theory of disease?

I think it's a bit ironic that you decided to include the germ theory of disease, especially since that one had an uphill climb against medical and scientific dogma of the day, and sort of reinforces Chrichton's point that consensus in science can be a bad thing, especially when that consensus is used to quell alternative theories or data in what is fundamentally an unsettled field of study.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[StikyPad]

"Even this moron who is as conservative as they come thinks that this crap is happening! You should too!"

Yeah, that's a convincing argument. I know whenever I hear someone quote a moron, I jump right on the bandwagon!

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Hucko]

If you follow the story through, you would realise that such men are portrayed in a bad light. Hence, Mr Crichton was saying don't be like this, it is stupid to do things because of greed.

Or he may have just been writing a enjoyable story.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm not trying to play to smart people, I'm trying to play to stupid people. Working out a clever plan for them would be a waste of time, and they probably wouldn't get it. I'm half convinced most of 'em hate the theory of global warming simply because they're afraid that someone's gonna shut down nascar.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Rei]

I could have sworn that I already replied to this, but I guess not, so I'll reply again.

The jet was one of the last things that happened in the book, as I remember it. Wikipedia seems to back me up on the ordering:

By the time the scientists realize this, however, Andromeda had mutated into a form that no longer turned blood to powder. Instead, it degraded plastic "rubber" gaskets, exactly like the ones on every door and hatch in Wildfire.

Furthermore, Wikipedia notes,at the end:

An epilogue to the novel reveals that a manned spacecraft, Andros V, burned up on re-entry as its polymer-based heat shielding had failed. All spaceflight attempts were discontinued until further notice.

I.e., it's a new feature, not an old one. This organism repeatedly mutates collectively. And no, I didn't gather what you did about it being a Von Neumann machine with collective intelligence. Neither did Wikipedia, apparently. It simply comes across as someone who doesn't understand mutation.

Re:I wish that he had written this earlier.

[Goaway]

This argument makes perfect sense, because scientists have always believed in global warming ever since antiquity, and certainly don't want to rock the boat now by allowing any non-traditionalist "no global warming" theories to get a foothold.

Look, sarcasm aside, global warming is the new theory here, and denying it is the traditionalist view, OK? The only thing that is ironic is that you seem to argue the exact opposite would be the case.

Ah, the global warming guy

[PIPBoy3000]

I'm not sure I'm too keen on Michael Crichton after his comments about global warming. I don't think gene patents are a swell idea, but I'm not sure I'd hold up Crichton as an authority on scientific matters.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[IflyRC]

I'm personally glad he voiced his opinion on global warming. The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community. Scientists should always question - if not, the world would still be flat.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Questioning is fine. He didn't question, he stated... and saying that global warming and other disasters are the cause of an evil environmentalist cabal isn't especially scientific.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[sdnick]

I'm not sure I'm too keen on Michael Crichton after his comments about global warming. I don't think gene patents are a swell idea, but I'm not sure I'd hold up Crichton as an authority on scientific matters.

What do Crichton's comments on global warming have to do with the views he stated in this article, and how do they in any way affect the merits of his argument? Being "keen" on someone doesn't help or hurt their credibility - if anything, this helps make Crichton's point about global-warming-as-religion - don't trust the infidel!

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[paeanblack]

I'm not sure I'm too keen on Michael Crichton after his comments about global warming. I don't think gene patents are a swell idea, but I'm not sure I'd hold up Crichton as an authority on scientific matters.

Yes, because science works like a democracy. A bunch of us get together and vote on the laws of nature, and nature obeys. If you step out of line and promote a theory opposing "the consensus of the scientific community", then we burn you at the stake _and_ revoke your funding.

Trust us. It's better this way. Do you know how annoying it is when some uppity prick like Newton or Einstein comes along and claims that all the old theories are wrong? It really sucks when they manage to prove it, because the rest of us look like we're sitting there with our thumbs up our asses.

Global Warming is a celebrity field right now, and it will keep alot of us employed for a very long time. You can understand why we are a little protective of our sacred consensus, right?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[IflyRC]

Ok, just like Al Gore has "stated" that what he believes as fact. Both sides are guilty of stating their hypothesis as fact even to the point that Dr. Heidi Cullen at the weather channel believes those in disagreement with her should have their AMS certifications removed. Strong arm tactics don't you think?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[UbuntuDupe]

The merit of gene patents depends primarily on economics and ethics, not the science of genetics. I know it sounds like a nitpick, but it's a serious error to think that, because e.g. you are intimately familiar with monkey genes, you are more qualified to say whether patents on monkey genes would promote innovation.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[SatanicPuppy]

What do Crichton's past biased comments on global warming have to do with the fact that he's now opining about something else? He shot his credibility, and now he's taking a stance on an important issue which will now suffer for his participation.

I love how people like to talk about controversial, yet widely accepted scientific truths as "religions". See, when a scientist who has tons of documentation and has spent his whole life working on the case that people are causing climate change gets pissed off because a fiction writer "disproves" it all, putting the smack down on years of attempts to educate the public about the danger, it's because it's a "religion", not because someone is just shoveling a load of inaccurate crap.

On the other hand, when an actual religion gets slapped down for trying to get a load of inaccurate crap taught in schools, it's because science is "biased" and "unfair".

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[FlyingSquidStudios]

How did Al Gore come into this? I know I didn't mention him. He's not even a scientist so I fail to see how it's even relevant?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[IflyRC]

He came into it because he is currently the global warming champion. If you can think of someone else who has more face time in the national media and who's name is more synonomous with global warming please, feel free to mention them.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how annoying it is when some uppity prick like Newton or Einstein comes along and claims that all the old theories are wrong?

Michael Crichton is not a Newton or an Einstein.

He's a novelist.

You might as well believe me, an AC posting to slashdot.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[jcgf]

You propose we listen to the economists and ethics professors who don't even know what genes are instead? No thanks.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[FlyingSquidStudios]

I thought we were talking about scientists, not spokespeople. Sorry.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[IflyRC]

My post included a scientist, not getting into a petty argument with you over the internet ;)

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[DuBois]

I find it hilarious that the Slashdot "democracy" will support Crichton on the inadvisability of gene patents while casting aspersions on his scientific opinion regarding enviroreligiosity. You can't have it both ways, guys and gals. Either the author of the TV ER series is a Hollywood kook, or he's a serious scientist and M.D. who has done his homework and knows what he's talking about.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[sdnick]

What do Crichton's past biased comments on global warming have to do with the fact that he's now opining about something else? He shot his credibility, and now he's taking a stance on an important issue which will now suffer for his participation.

I don't pretend to know much about the issue, but I don't see how dissenting views and questions in science are a bad thing. How did Crichton's credibility (whatever that is) get "shot"? Were all or even most of Crichton's views on global warming proven wrong?

I love how people like to talk about controversial, yet widely accepted scientific truths as "religions". See, when a scientist who has tons of documentation and has spent his whole life working on the case that people are causing climate change gets pissed off because a fiction writer "disproves" it all

A fiction writer can't disprove science without doing or relying on science - if Crichton has a point, it's based on the work of other scientists who've spend their lives working on the same subject and have tons of documentation to back up their views. Real science can take rigorous examination and questioning - religion can't.

, putting the smack down on years of attempts to educate the public about the danger, it's because it's a "religion", not because someone is just shoveling a load of inaccurate crap.

If it's inaccurate crap, it should and will be disproven or shown to be unprovable, like the Intelligent Design nonsense. Attempting to shout down someone whose scientific views don't agree with yours is bad for science and has a proven track record of failure throughout history.

On the other hand, when an actual religion gets slapped down for trying to get a load of inaccurate crap taught in schools, it's because science is "biased" and "unfair".

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here - if you're referring to the Intelligent Design thing, obviously that's an attempt to introduce the concept of an unprovable and unverifiable Intelligent Designer into the science of evolution. If there are legitimate counter-claims to the global warming claims, they will be based on verifiable, repeatable research. Denying reality because you don't like it is not good science, no matter what side of the issue you currently find most persuasive.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[amabbi]

Questioning is fine. He didn't question, he stated... and saying that global warming and other disasters are the cause of an evil environmentalist cabal isn't especially scientific.

You clearly did not read State of Fear. Without editorializing my opinion on global warming, what Crichton does is offer a case that global warming is not a slam-dunk scientific case as the media makes it out to be. He fashions what he admits is a fantasy tale involving conspiracy around this idea, but never... EVER.. does he state that global warming is complete fiction and environmental catastrophe is part of a conspiracy of maniacs.

He then states his opinion on global warming in the appendix, and provides references to support his beliefs. Some of it is compelling. The RealClimate people focus on one graph that he uses which utilizes an extrema of data points, and then justifies itself to complete bash the rest of his arguments. That certainly isn't scientific.

And so is bashing a man's opinions without reading his work.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[UbuntuDupe]

I propose we listen to people who understand the ethical and practical implications of various allocations of property rights and how to weigh the (often hidden) costs and benefits, rather than someone who thinks his scientific knowledge translates directly into that ability or who refuses to regard a pursuit other than his own field as more important.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[ceejayoz]

He's ostracised because his opinion is backed up by long-since refuted arguments.

Science has already questioned them and found them lacking. Unless you can point out errors or omissions in their refutations, why shouldn't they stand?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Anonymous Coward]

His "opinion"? What's opinion worth?

Anyone who works in a very technical field should understand the difference between specialist knowledge and general knowledge. Laymen simply cannot use their general knowledge in an intelligent way and expect to come to meaningful conclusions.

It's unfortunate that the general public simply has no choice but to rely on specialists to distinguish fact from fiction, but we've come a long way from the days of very simple scientific experiments that anyone can understand. Simply pretending that the opinion of a person without specialist training is valid gets us nowhere.

Consider evolution -- of all the tenets of modern science, few are as fully supported by the facts as evolution is. Yet many people in the general public believe there's some sort of controversy. They are wrong, plain and simple, because they don't have the capability to understand the science.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[SatanicPuppy]

The thing is, he didn't have a counter argument, he didn't have any new research, he didn't have any explanations. All he did was go through some existing data, pull out anomolies, and highball predictions, and say, "See, this is all crap." He even made some pretty amatureish errors, like pointing out a few places on the globe where temperatures have been trending down, and calling that a counter argument! "Global Warming" is a popular name for this sort of climate change, but I don't think you'll find many scientists who would say that all temperatures are going up all the time, only that the global average is trending up.

I'm not wedded to global warming...It's like "Dark Matter"...I don't think they're right, but I think they're on to something, and I definitely think it merits more study. And I think Crichton, who may know something about medicine, but is hardly a climate specialist, and who produced a work that I found to be pretty substandard in support of what was clearly a personal bias based on nothing, intentionally skewed his fact reporting to make the data support his pet theory.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[PingSpike]

I thought Crichton was a fiction author that talked a lot, not a scientist. Who are the scientists in this discussion?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Sique]

Thomas S. Kuhn called and wants his paradigm change back!

Global Warming research will keep you employed, independent of your stated hypotheses. As if scientists critical of the thesis, Global Warming would be a) existant and b) influenced by Man weren't able to get any funding.

Science at least from a social point of view works not as a democracy, but more like horse racing. You can bet on whatever you want, but only one horse will win, and there is more money to be made, but also more risk in picking outsiders. It took some time and lots of little races to finally admit Global Warming to the big races, and now Global Warming is in front with some length, and the crowd is chanting "Global Warming! Global Warming!". It looks as if Global Warming will make it, but there are still people betting on the old champions Steady State and Atmospherical Balance, who might come from behind and could still be overtaking Global Warming.

The race is on, place your bets!

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[PingSpike]

Why not? I'll remind you that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Its often much easier to trash a person then their refute their position directly, hell thats pretty much how politics work...however that doesn't mean thats the correct way to make decisions.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Unless I do not recall correctly, Michael Crichton is a pathologist.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Miseph]

Oh, but you can! All it requires is thinking.

Once you start thinking, you can actually separate unrelated ideas from one another, even if they are presented in the same document or by the same person. We not only CAN support Michael Crichton when we says genetic patents are bad while opposing him when he accuses mainstream environmentalists of conspiring to commit mass murder in order to "fake" global warming, but there is NOTHING to stop us from doing so.

Believe it or not, we don't live in a world of dichotomies. Any time you think you only have two choices, you're probably wrong, and you certainly aren't thinking.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Do you know how annoying it is when some uppity prick like Newton or Einstein comes along and claims that all the old theories are wrong?

Maybe scientists are too isolated from the general public. Anyone acquainted with a scientist would know the excitement that comes when a new theory suddenly makes sense of an attic full of observations (example: plate tectonics) or opens up new fields of inquiry (relativity, quantum mechanics).

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I find it hilarious that the Slashdot "democracy" will support Crichton on the inadvisability of gene patents while casting aspersions on his scientific opinion regarding enviroreligiosity. [michaelcrichton.com] You can't have it both ways, guys and gals. Either the author of the TV ER series is a Hollywood kook, or he's a serious scientist and M.D. who has done his homework and knows what he's talking about.

In other words, you're openly promoting the idea of ad hominem attacks.. the guy may be right but hell, he's an ass so he's wrong!

Nice rational thinking there.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have it both ways, guys and gals.

Of course you can. He's a biologist by training, so might know something about genetics. On global warming, he's just another pundit with a book to sell.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[ROU Nuisance Value]

Wow! So:
- Peer review and scientific consensus are forms of superstitious mass group-think
- Or, if not, peer review and scientific consensus == new forms of hysterical politico/religious pogrom
- A non-practicing MD novelist == Newton and Einstein
- These thoughts are all +5 Insightful
May I please have some shoyu with my Refried Straw Men?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Usekh]

You seem to forget one key point. For decades scientists called Global Warming nonsense. It was only through heaps of peer reviewed studies and truckloads of data that it became accepted. But please, I do love listening to repeated right right talking points. Always good for a laugh in the morning.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Usekh]

Or maybe a broken clock is right twice a day.

Just because you are miles off base about one thing doesn't mean you are wrong about everything.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Maxo-Texas]

No man... they are really hostile to any new theory that threatens the ones their work is based on. Even to the point of actively suppressing them and trying to destroy the scientists pushing them.

Imagine you have a great gold mine of grant money and salary and some new theory threatens all that.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[gfxguy]

Look, I don't deny global warming, and I don't deny even that man may be having an impact on it, but we get the same crap from both sides of the issue.

People point to melting glaciers and say "see, global warming!" Then the other side points to other ice sheets that have been increasing in thickness, and say "see, no global warming!"

Then, at the end of the day, the former accuse the latter of "being in bed" with the oil companies, because there's no other logical reason that the latter would be pointing out those facts.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (because repeating yourself is a sign of stupidity) that very few people, not even Crichton, deny the existence of global warming or that mankind has not had an influence. If that's all you get by reading what he wrote, or hearing his lectures, then you're not paying attention.

What Crichton and others ARE doing is disputing the validity of the proof some people are using on climate change. It's not denying that these things are happening, it's pointing out that these things don't necessarily prove anything. Ice is melting here, it's getting thicker there. The temperature is rising here, it's dropping there. The temperature is rising here, but that's because the city is creating a "heat island" and those results should be adjusted downward because it's not an indication of global temperatures.

I haven't seen ANYONE give a completely balanced look at it.

Crichton certainly isn't innocent, but his book was ultimately a work of fiction. Al Gore can't say the same thing.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[belmolis]

No, because the idea is to evaluate the ideas and arguments, not the person who puts them forward. The argument that Crichton can't be right about gene patents and wrong about environmental issues is based on the ad hominem fallacy.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Danse]

Global Warming is a celebrity field right now, and it will keep alot of us employed for a very long time. You can understand why we are a little protective of our sacred consensus, right?

Umm... you are aware that the oil industry and others are practically begging to fund scientists in an effort to disprove current global warming theories, aren't you?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'm not sure I'd hold up Crichton as an authority on scientific matters.
There's no need to reject all his scientific statements outright. While Crichton is not an atmospheric scientist, he is a medical doctor. I'm willing to listen what he has to say about medicine while disregarding his global warming opinions.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[PeelBoy]

So using that logic why exactly should we listen to you or care about what you have to say?

I'm sure you've said something stupid once before or had a bad opinion.

Unless you think you're perfect? Then that's just another reason for me NOT to listen to you.

Great logic.

Forget the fact that he actually has a point and lets bash him for something he said a while ago.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[StikyPad]

Science at least from a social point of view works not as a democracy, but more like horse racing.

They shoot you when you're no longer commercially viable?

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Crichton is a looney with no argument. He has been completely discredited by his own actions. As his behavior here shows, he clearly is not interested in having a civilized conversation about this matter and he certainly is no scientist. He is a has-been novelist that wrote an okay book about dinosaurs right when dinosaurs were popular. Meh. Does not make him an authority on genetic patents nor on global climate change due to human causes.

Re:Ah, the global warming guy

[Sique]

In a certain way yes. If the research you are doing doesn't get any new grants, or any other sources of money (funding, sale of results, money from charities, your own money), your department at the university gets closed.

Please RTFA

[walterwalter]

In a State of Fear!

Compelling

[modemboy]

The most compelling argument for me was this:
"Countries that don't have gene patents actually offer better gene testing than we do, because when multiple labs are allowed to do testing, more mutations are discovered, leading to higher-quality tests."

Making an economic argument, that other countries will gain an advantage over us, is the only way to convince the people who actually have the power to change the situation.

Re:Compelling

[PhysicsPhil]

The most compelling argument for me was this: "Countries that don't have gene patents actually offer better gene testing than we do, because when multiple labs are allowed to do testing, more mutations are discovered, leading to higher-quality tests."

Making an economic argument, that other countries will gain an advantage over us, is the only way to convince the people who actually have the power to change the situation.

This is a specious argument. The countries offering great gene testing are not doing the research to develop the tests, but rather using the fruits of research produced by countries that do have patent protection. Biological research is an expensive and time-consuming process; without some way to recoup costs, it just won't get done on the required scale.

Re:Compelling

[modemboy]

"Biological research is an expensive and time-consuming process; without some way to recoup costs, it just won't get done on the required scale."

I think that is a specious argument. Not every country treats its medical research as a profit center, many have publicly funded health care and associated research. According to your theory the International Human Genome Project would never have happened. I think there is plenty of room for both types of research, I just believe that in this case companies could rely on good old fashioned trade secrets if they develop a novel technique, if it truly is then they are safe, if it is something obvious that others will figure out then they don't deserve a patent anyway.

Hey, I wrote a book about genetic stuff

[0racle]

Hey this is genetics, I know this!

Re:Hey, I wrote a book about genetic stuff

[paulpach]

That was only in the movie, no unix is mentioned in the book at all. The computers where running Hollywood OS and the girl in the book was a boy.

The book was more of a collection of random thoughts about chaos theory and how pretentious we are about trying to control everything than about dinosaurs (YAWN). Steven Spielberg pulled a miracle, changed about 80% of what he read and turned the book into something actually worth watching. Giving credit/blame to Crichton about anything you saw in the movie requires quite a bit of salt.

Re:Hey, I wrote a book about genetic stuff

[TheoMurpse]

Well, I'm pretty sure he studied genetics in medical school -- I know my girlfriend had to.

Wish he had written this months ago...

[The-Bus]

...and thereby saved me the tedium of having to read Next.

it's simply absurd

[circletimessquare]

i don't think there is a better argument for prior art than that mother nature made it. but simply finding a gene in a fruit fly or an aneorbic bacterium is not ground to patent anything. and certainly simply finding a gene and elucidating its behavior in the human body is not grounds either. grounds for a nobel prize, but not grounds for exclusivity

obviously, not according to law, but obviously according to simple common sense

now, if in some future decade, scientists make a genetic sequence that has no similarity to anything in mother nature anywhere that is useful, i'd say they can patent that.... i said NO similiarity. it's not like you can change one base pair and claim you've done something novel right?

but patenting what already exists? is there no better example of greed undermining common sense? is there no greater absurdity in the relentless march of intellectual property law into insanity and evil in the name of the almighty buck?

ip law is important for rewarding creators and innovators. not researchers of what already exists. the reward for them is scientific, altruistic, academic, and intellectual. it's even rewarding financially, but not in the framework of patents

Re:it's simply absurd

[jimstapleton]

I agree.

I also don't want to get cancer or have to pay $0.01 per cell replication in my body because some dumb fuck decided to allow a patent on P53

I admit that's an extreme case, but it stands to reason if it's made all over the place, all the time, and has been for millenia, it shouldn't be patentable.

Re:it's simply absurd

[mpe]

now, if in some future decade, scientists make a genetic sequence that has no similarity to anything in mother nature anywhere that is useful, i'd say they can patent that.... i said NO similiarity.

Thing is that such a patent would effectivly be a "software patent". With the added complication that biological systems tend to have self replication as a "standard feature".

ip law is important for rewarding creators and innovators. not researchers of what already exists.

In many cases the desired end is to ensure that these people share their knowlage with the rest of humanity. This "reward" being a means to that end.

Re:it's simply absurd

[rgriff59]

I agree that it is absurd, but how about countering the absurd with absurdity?

What if everyone with Hepatitis C were to sue the 'owner of the genome for Hepatitis C'? A patent would imply the invention, and the unauthorized infection would imply a failure to control and contain said invention adequately. If I 'own' a dog, and it bites someone, I am responsible. If you 'own' a disease and it infects someone, you are responsible. It doesn't sound like much of a leap, if the system allows such absurd ownership in the first place. A dose of liability to go with that ownership would make such ownership much less attractive.

Re:it's simply absurd

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Thank you. I've tried to say the same in other posts, but yours came out clearer than mine. Nice.

"fact of nature"

[l2718]

Actually, 35 USC 102 already limits patents to a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter". Facts of nature (such as the sequence of a gene) are not patentable -- though Congress in its infinite wisdon has declined to specificially add this to the law (as done in some countries). All that remains is for the court (that is, the CAFC) to actually care about the law.

Re:"fact of nature"

[cweber]

And they need to act fast. As the maintainer of a local copy of GenBank it saddens me that the patent section of GenBank has been growing far faster lately than say, the plant section or even the primate section. What does that say about us scientists? Blech!

All patents are bad

[dada21]

Honestly, if you take this opinion further, you can see that all patents are bad -- when it comes to the general populace. Patents are a post-market solution to create scarcity of a supply of something. Scarcity is needed to increase the price per the supply/demand curve. By artificially making an item scarce, a higher demand will mean a higher price. Patents are uncompetitive, though, the absolute sole reason why certain monopolies exist.

Some will say that inventors won't invent without patents, but this is untrue if you look at the vast number of modern inventions that we use every day that have 10,000 parts that have expired patents and maybe 10-20 that are still patented. Look at cell phones -- each phone has some obscure patent pending, but the vast majority of phones are fairly identical, and yet there is still a HUGE market for phones. Why do inventors keep creating new phones if the majority of their parts are unprotected?

Some will say that drugs won't get invented, but if you look at the initial medical treatment market, we had doctors who actually wanted to help people by creating new drugs and allowing them to be manufacturered by others regardless of who invented it. Consider this: if you knew of 3 companies making the same new drug, who would you trust more? The company who spent years in clinical trials, showing you that their ingredients is safe, or the 2 companies who attempted to copy said drug through reverse engineering it -- possibly incorporating something unsafe? The same is true with any "invention" that isn't patented -- you decide what product you need based on the cost and the safety. Sometimes the less expensive product is less safe or less effective, something that isn't the case.

Gene patents are also ridiculous -- why should an artificial State-enforced monopoly be placed on something that obviously can be utilized better by a market of competitors. If you want to be cautious about your competition "stealing" your research, just start your own clinics that don't share their research with the open market. Call it DRM of genetic research -- don't share it with others, and the chance that they'll steal it is slim. For most companies, it would be more advantageous for them to purchase the information outright than try to "steal" it through corporate espionage. They can also work to develop their own solutions if they realize that you found a solution -- but that development will cost money and time, of course. Still, it would seem to be better for the public and all the various markets to have a competitive market for genetic research rather than a monopolistic one that keeps only a few companies in the top tier and the rest out of the business.

Re:All patents are bad

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why do inventors keep creating new phones if the majority of their parts are unprotected?

Most if not all phones are created by large multi-national corporations who can deal with patent lawsuits, but mostly deal with cross-licensing deals upon potential violations. This works out fine as MAD among those companies, but the small-time inventor has no such legal team or portfolio. Oddly, though he's the one patents help the most, he might also be the one to suffer the most, depending on the situation. One thing is for sure, if a small inventor can bring an idea to market in 5 years, without any IP protection, a big multi-national can take that idea, re-implement it and get it manufactured in Asia in time for Christmas. This isn't encouraging. Sorry, I don't have a solution to offer, just pointing out some of the pitfalls.

Re:All patents are bad

[dada21]

You're right, and thanks for that insight. Yet we see that the multinational corporations are more powerful BECAUSE of their ability to utilize patents to the fullest -- not to protect themselves, but to destroy competition.

How does the individual inventor find protection with a patent? Can the individual inventor afford to fight a multinational corporation if they "steal" his ideas? I doubt it. If you create something and I have more money and more legal power than you, how would you fight me? Chances are, you won't. The State prefers those who pander to them, not those who find loopholes in the system made to keep the big companies big and the little guys little and subservient to the big companies.

Re:All patents are bad

[WebHostingGuy]

>>>Consider this: if you knew of 3 companies making the same new drug, who would you trust more? The company who spent years in clinical trials, showing you that their ingredients is safe, or the 2 companies who attempted to copy said drug through reverse engineering it -- possibly incorporating something unsafe?

This does not hold true. Today when a drug goes off patent the maker of the drug continues to sell the drug along with the generics (at close to the same price). Even though the generics do not have the same quality control as the maker of the drug generics are used instead because the cost is slightly lower. The cost is the only thing that matters to some HMOs and insurance plans. (And yes, there is a difference in manufacturing and quality control).

There is no brand loyalty for drugs because of the outside influence exerted by the insurance companies and pharmacies. Did you ever wonder why there are laws that say pharmacies can substitute a generic drug for a brand one? The end cost most of the time is exactly the same, however, generics sell the generic brand to pharmacies for a lower price than the brand name. So, when a pharmacy substitutes a generic for a name brand they pocket the difference in price while they bill the insurance company nearly the same as the brand name. That's the outside influence. So why doesn't the brand name drug just lower the price to the pharmacies? They usually can't because their manufacturing costs are higher because they have the quality control issues that generics generally don't. This is not to say generics don't care about quality control, but there are large differences.

Some patents are needed, period. Gene patents are not because I believe you should not be able to patent nature. It's a prior art thing. Just wait, someday God is going to come down and sue for his patents back.

Re:All patents are bad

[DuBois]

Quality control, schmality control. Both original and generic manufacturers have to follow the exact same insane requirements put down by the FDA. The FDA audits the generics just as rigorously as the originals. The "original" manufacturers just have much higher overhead (TV advertising, etc.). Competition works, even though the original manufacturers would prefer that it didn't.

Re:All patents are bad

[tfried]

Patents have nothing to do with quality control.

A patent holder may have better or worse quality control than a producer of generics.

Patent holders will often licence their patents to competitors in addition to producing the drug themselves. Those competitors will often have lower standards of quality control, as they need to pay up the licence fees and still sell at a competitive price. However the competitor could also try to offer better quality for a higher price, and try to conquer that niche of the market, however small or large it may be.

On the side of the patent holder, owning a patent - and hence controlling the market for that drug - may give the producer an opportunity to sell high quality at a high price or low quality at a low price, or of course low quality at a high price, or all of these at once (selling under different brand names owned by the same company or its subsidiaries).

The bottom line is: Patents and quality control are entirely unrelated. There are valid (but refutable, IMO) arguments about patents being needed in the pharmacy industry, but this simply isn't one of them.

Re:All patents are bad

[mpe]

Most if not all phones are created by large multi-national corporations who can deal with patent lawsuits, but mostly deal with cross-licensing deals upon potential violations. This works out fine as MAD among those companies, but the small-time inventor has no such legal team or portfolio. Oddly, though he's the one patents help the most, he might also be the one to suffer the most, depending on the situation. One thing is for sure, if a small inventor can bring an idea to market in 5 years, without any IP protection, a big multi-national can take that idea, re-implement it and get it manufactured in Asia in time for Christmas. This isn't encouraging. Sorry, I don't have a solution to offer, just pointing out some of the pitfalls.

In such a senario the inventor having a few patents isn't much use. The big corps can easily just ignore such a person, even accuse them of violating some of their own patents. Entry into the "MAD club" requires having a sizable number of patents. Patents are not nuclear weapons where having a even small number can make you a credible threat to the "big boys".

Re:All patents are bad

[mpe]

How does the individual inventor find protection with a patent? Can the individual inventor afford to fight a multinational corporation if they "steal" his ideas?

If someone tries they are likely to find themselves as defendent in counterclaims for infringing patents held by the "big corp(s)".

If you create something and I have more money and more legal power than you, how would you fight me? Chances are, you won't.

If you have any sense you won't in a way which you are bound to lose. Any more gurilla militia is going to line up to get shot by a regular army...

Re:All patents are bad

[bill_mcgonigle]

How does the individual inventor find protection with a patent? Can the individual inventor afford to fight a multinational corporation if they "steal" his ideas? I doubt it.

Perhaps not, but the possibility exists to attract investors to do this. Without any patent protection, there's no recourse, and the little guy gets smashed, de facto. Heck, it would probably be a good idea to form a big business dedicated to this business model if there were no patents.

I feel like we're riding in a car that gets a flat every 50 miles. It takes 20 minutes to plug the tire each time, but it still beats walking. Clearly better tires are needed, but I don't know what they look like or where to buy them. I'm not ready to buy a team of horses though.

Re:All patents are bad

[bill_mcgonigle]

Patents are not nuclear weapons where having a even small number can make you a credible threat to the "big boys".

IIRC, Apple, Microsoft and RIM have all recently had to pay patent royalties to small companies.

Re:All patents are bad

[mpe]

So why doesn't the brand name drug just lower the price to the pharmacies? They usually can't because their manufacturing costs are higher because they have the quality control issues that generics generally don't. This is not to say generics don't care about quality control, but there are large differences.

Except there will be the same regulator regulating both generic and brand name drugs. A generic which is dangerous (or simply dosn't work) is likely to attract the attention anywhere pharmacutical drugs are effectivly regulated in the first place. Also pharmacists tend to be considered responsible professional people, thus they would carry part of the blame for any harm done to people.

Some patents are needed, period.

Pharmacutical drugs existed long before any kind of patents existed though.

Re:All patents are bad

[Rich0]

Some will say that drugs won't get invented, but if you look at the initial medical treatment market, we had doctors who actually wanted to help people by creating new drugs and allowing them to be manufacturered by others regardless of who invented it.

Well, drug R&D is a bit more expensive than cell phone engineering. It mostly is the result of having to pay doctors to run the clinical trials (if you have 10,000 subjects, every one of them has a doctor, and they ALL get paid). And there is a much higher risk of failure. If you make a new cell phone chances are that the new phone will work, even if it doesn't corner the market. Not so with drugs - there is a good chance a new drug won't work at all, and even if it does it isn't guaranteed to corner the market for long.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "initial medical treatment market", and the free "drugs" that doctors invented therein. Can you give a specific example? I'm not aware of many examples of non-profit-originated drugs on the market. Note - I define drug as a dosable substance shown to be safe and effective, not just some molecule that suppresses tumor growth in a test tube (bleach works really well for that). Usually when people talk about "drugs" developed for almost no cost they're talking about some molecule that has some activity in some assay - often with no thought to safety, bioavailability, etc. Commercial pharma companies spend alomst nothing (per molecule) developing such concept molecules - the costs come in when you try to solve all the other issues. If all you want is some chemical that has an effect in some assay any pharma company could have its robots find one in a few days. There is a whole lot more to curing disease than just switching off some enzyme...

Re:All patents are bad

[*weasel]

Honestly, if you take this opinion further, you can see that all patents are bad -- when it comes to the general populace.

That's still debatable.

Fortunately, this argument is much more straightforward than your more general one:
Allowing preventable human suffering to continue in the name of corporate profits is bad.

Maybe it is worse for the general public if Toshiba is granted a limited monopoly on some fancy display technology, in exchange for publicly declaring exactly how it works. But at least no-one's going to die because of it.

So pardon me if I'm willing to remain conservative about making broad changes to all IP law, while still being progressive about having gene-patents revoked.

Re:All patents are bad

[jafac]

I sort of agree with you, but the argument FOR patents is also a strong one.

Actually, we'd probably be better off with a compromise: like the original one in Article 1 in the constitution regarding patent. Like; limit them to 7 years? Or even less? Both sides win. Really, the main reason patents and copyright are killing innovation right now, is that they've been extended and extended by corporate lobbyists beyond their general usefulness.

Personally - I think the best approach to fixing this problem is to fight hard for public campaign finance, then this problem will very quickly sort itself out, along with many, many others. But the forces lined up against such a change will make sure this never happens.

Re:All patents are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do inventors keep creating new phones if the majority of their parts are unprotected?

Because they can still patent the new parts.

If you want to be cautious about your competition "stealing" your research, just start your own clinics that don't share their research with the open market

That would be worse than patents. Patents aren't just about ensuring the ability to recoup costs, it's also the requirement to publish into the public. Otherwise you could have those labs controlling the information indefinately.

Re:All patents are bad

[RexRhino]

Did you ever wonder why there are laws that say pharmacies can substitute a generic drug for a brand one?

What are you talking about? In lots of states it is illegal for a pharmacist to even offer a generic drug (let alone secretly replace the drug as you suggest)... the pharmacist is required to provide the brand name listed on the prescription unless the patient explicity asks about a generic.

Second, the insurance companies pay far far less for generic drugs than the brand names... which is a good thing, because those high drug costs are eventually passed on to the consumer in the cost of insurance. And the pharmacies are not getting rich either from generics - for the most part they make their money on over-the-counter medicines, toilet paper, dish detergent, cosmetics, and other crap they sell.

Third, generic drugs are the exact same substance as the brand name drug, and are just as effective. Quality control is so high with both generic and brand name drugs that it is not an issue. No one is getting sick or dying from using generic drugs instead of brand names, because those companies are just as liable for mistakes as the larger companies.

Re:All patents are bad

[WebHostingGuy]

>>In lots of states it is illegal for a pharmacist to even offer a generic drug (let alone secretly replace the drug as you suggest)

Check again, this happens a lot more than you think. Two states off the top of my head--Texas, Pennsylvania allow substitutions unless the MD specifically demands the brand name.

>>Second, the insurance companies pay far far less for generic drugs than the brand names

Insurance companies pay contracted rates on everything, which is lower than the normal lay person buying.

>>And the pharmacies are not getting rich either from generics

You are completely wrong here. This makes up the bulk of their profit. Research this.

>>Third, generic drugs are the exact same substance as the brand name drug

Not all the time. The molocule is the same but the individual parts which make up the molocule might be different.

>>No one is getting sick or dying from using generic drugs instead of brand names

See my post above with some problems with generics. Not all generics are bad, but the companies making them tend to have cheaper production processes which do lead to problems.

Re:All patents are bad

[tfoss]

Wow are you just wrong.
Honestly, if you take this opinion further, you can see that all patents are bad -- when it comes to the general populace.

No. The current system of *long* patents, patentability of too many things (including genes, which imho are pretty close to facts), and a broken patent system is bad. The theory of a patent system is actually quite needed.

Patents are a post-market solution to create scarcity of a supply of something. Scarcity is needed to increase the price per the supply/demand curve. By artificially making an item scarce, a higher demand will mean a higher price. Patents are uncompetitive, though, the absolute sole reason why certain monopolies exist.

Patents are a very old solution to the fact that ideas are not physical. You are right that they are intended to produce scarcity when there is none, and that is not a bad thing done correctly. Objects and ideas are simply different entities, and neither can be adequately dealt with by rules for the other. We can all agree that the concept of physical property and ownership is a good thing for society. If I have a club, its mine and you can't just take it without an agreement with me. Same goes for ideas. If I come up with an idea for the Transmogrifier 3000 and an ingenious way to implement it, I should be able to derive something for that. If there is no patent system, then my only option is secrecy..which will only work until I ship the first one. In order for me to expend time, effort, and money to create this wonderful new idea and implementation, I need to know that I will be able to recoup from it. That means I need some kind of ownership of the idea and implementation, thus patents. It is similar for copyright. People long ago realized that 'in order for the xxxx of arts and sciences...' we need 'quote quote.'

Some will say that inventors won't invent without patents, but this is untrue if you look at the vast number of modern inventions that we use every day that have 10,000 parts that have expired patents and maybe 10-20 that are still patented. [...] Why do inventors keep creating new phones if the majority of their parts are unprotected?

If an inventor can't derive income from a new invention, why would they do it? Perhaps the idle rich will see fit to invent for the betterment of mankind, but I'm kind of skeptical. Your example is quite silly on its face. We live in a society that has patents, that they expire does not undermine the value of our patent system. People still invent new things because these new things are patentable, and there is value in a patented thing (as Apple and the 60+ (or whatever) patents on the iPhone).

Some will say that drugs won't get invented, but if you look at the initial medical treatment market, we had doctors who actually wanted to help people by creating new drugs and allowing them to be manufacturered by others regardless of who invented it.

Um, what the hell are you talking about? Which initial medical treatment market? Please offer some more detail. Additionally, at this point in medical science, individual doctors pretty much never create drugs. Hundreds of researchers, scientists, and support staff create drugs, pharmacuetical companies shepherd these drugs through years of testing, and individual doctors prescribe them.

Consider this: if you knew of 3 companies making the same new drug, who would you trust more? The company who spent years in clinical trials, showing you that their ingredients is safe, or the 2 companies who attempted to copy said drug through reverse engineering it -- possibly incorporating something unsafe?

First off, people would more that likely just buy the cheapest one. Secondly, how do you know which drug is safer?

The same is true with any "invention" that isn't patented -- you decide what product you need based on the cost and the safety. Sometimes the less expensive product is less safe or less effective, somet

Re:All patents are bad

[ezeri]

Not all the time. The molocule is the same but the individual parts which make up the molocule might be different.

Oh, wow, did you not even take basic chemistry? Generics are identical to name brand. They have to be. The only possible differences are in packaging, an area that is very well developed, and means little to the final result.

Re:All patents are bad

[WebHostingGuy]

No, they don't have to be identical. From the FDA website:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drugsatfda/glossary.htm#TE

"By law, a generic drug product must contain the identical amounts of the same active ingredient(s) as the brand name product. Drug products evaluated as "therapeutically equivalent" can be expected to have equal effect and no difference when substituted for the brand name product."

How that active ingredient is made up or processed does not have to be the same. The test is whether the generic is "therapeutically equivalent" which means:

"Drug products classified as therapeutically equivalent can be substituted with the full expectation that the substituted product will produce the same clinical effect and safety profile as the prescribed product."

The definition goes on to what the minimum standards are. However, this leaves leeway as to how the generic is processed and manufactured. And, it does vary from company to company.

cheese and more cheese

[fluxindamix]

"when someone you love, blah blah", I love it when a best seller writer writes like that, shows the true nature of why best selling stuff is not good for your mind. Important Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic.

Look on the bright side...

[robably]

You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place.

On the other hand, it could be someone you really hate. It all evens out.

Re:Look on the bright side...

[jugglerjon]

And if you hate more people then you love the odds are actually better for you.

Not just bad, but plain wrong.

[tygerstripes]

Genetic code is surely the biggest case of Prior Art going. Fine, you can patent a light-bulb, but you can't patent Electricity just because you discovered roughly what it was and how it worked!

Genes are usually discovered, not invented. Most genetic treatment involves finding out what a gene is, how it works, and how it goes wrong. That's hardly a creative invention, is it?

I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[eldavojohn]

I've read a lot of Michael Crichton's works. I enjoyed them.

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people?

To quote a speech of Crichton:

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record.

Mr. Crichton, you're great at plot twists and you also happen to be great at political spin. Please keep to the former so I can remain a fan of yours. I like your position on this topic but you do not end your commentary well:

Fortunately, two congressmen want to make the full benefit of the decoded genome available to us all. Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. Mr. Becerra has been careful to say the bill does not hamper invention, but rather promotes it. He's right. This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us. It deserves our support.

How will this bill fuel innovation? You wrote in Jurassic Park that it is better to invest billions in a dinosaur theme park than to find a cure for AIDS. Why? Because you can't charge people anything you want for a cure for AIDS, that would be immoral. What if it was acceptable to charge a million dollars for a single dose of a cure? The benefit of medical research would sky rocket and I'm sure more money would go into development. My question is simply, how do you ensure that forcing parts of research to be open to the public won't prevent companies from dumping money into that research? If a company discovers and goes through the painstaking research of finding "natural genes" then why shouldn't they be able to profit off that?

I agree with you, but if you're going to comment on this, you must be prepared for the counter argument. "He's right." Simply won't suffice for me.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure more money would go into development.

Or into advertisements of people screaming randomly assembled letters off of mountaintops while sitting in bathtubs. Your call.

My question is simply, how do you ensure that forcing parts of research to be open to the public won't prevent companies from dumping money into that research?

Because it didn't? As it was pointed out, countries where these things aren't patentable already have better genetic tests than the US does. This isn't some thought experiment, the proof is in the other parts of the world that have been making this work for years. The only reason that it would fail here would be petulant megacorps refusing to do any work at all if the government won't prevent people from competing against them, and once they've burned through their billions paying their executive officers while stalling development and taking out full page newspaper ads crying about how people are going to die because of that decision, they'd be replaced by companies that were willing to work despite competition.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Luyseyal]

Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people?

Why does anyone? Why do Slashdot posters get all political trying to push their ideologies on other people?

People are, by nature, "political animals" as Aristotle suggested 2300 years ago.
-l

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Monkeyboy4]

Have you read Card? Or Hienlien? OR Crichton closely?

Almost all science fiction is really political and sociological story telling with a veneer of gadgets and aliens that allow the author to use well-crafted hyperbolic reality to avoid the ham-fisted arguments in a political text.

Not saying you aren't right in being annoyed by the politicking of Scifi authors, but it is a pretty long-standing tradition

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[SatanicPuppy]

Heinlein and Card attacked politics and ethics, which is perfectly within their see as writers.

Crichton attacked science for political reasons. Politics and Science are not the same thing, and I pretty much find it unacceptable for anyone to attack science, not because they have some concrete reason to believe that a mistake is being made, but simply because they don't care for the truth.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[moranar]

Aristotle meant "man is an animal that lives in the polis", i.e. that shares the customs of the other citizen, that votes, speaks, fights, etc.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[NekSnappa]

I've read many of Crightons books as well. Including one titled IIRC "Travels", which is a sort of auto-biography, or maybe more of a memoir since it just talks about his life experiences. In that book he spends some time talking about his time at Harvard Med school, and his residency there.

That's right he is a Medical Doctor, who also did post-doctoral work at the Salk Institute. Although not practicing, I'm pretty sure that he knows alot more than the average slashdotter on this particular topic.

I would say that it isn't his status as a celebrity that should cause you to listen, but rather his background in medicine.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Exactly. Get a haircut or a cab ride, or answer the door when someone holding a Bible shows up, and you'll get examples of people pushing their beliefs. We're simply more likely to hear from famous people because they can reach more listeners at a time.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[d3ac0n]

Have you actually read the transcripts of his speeches or his books relating to Science? Chrichton wasn't atacking Science with Politics, he was attacking the Politics that has entered Science! Chrichton himself argues for a more pure scientific approach! Here is a relevant quote from Mr. Chrichton:

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

You can find more quotes from him (including audio, when appropriate) Here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

Chrichton's main point is one I have also argued: Environmental science has been invaded by politicians and people with a specific political agenda to push, and that has colored and damaged almost all scientific study in that field since then. It as gotten so bad that "consensus" (something antithetical to the scientific method) is now being pushed as a reason why we should all believe that man and man alone is responsible for Global warming!

This is not science, it is politics. I, like Chrichton, am not interested in someone's political agenda when science is involved. I was science for science' sake. I realize that it isn't always possible, but it is something we should strive for. Chrichton merely pushes this, and as "nerds" we should be behind him on this point.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Rei]

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card [ornery.org]. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political?

It's somewhat inherent in writing, especially in genre fiction, and particularly in SF. In writing SF, the author is tasked with imagining a future with varying levels of similarities and differences with our own. Crichton writes commercial fiction, but he borders on near-term sci-fi. When doing this, you have to come up with a timeline and the rammifications of what has happened. It's difficult to make one's political ideology *not* show through. If you think that nuclear power is going to be the downfall of society, and you have to imagine a future time, do you really expect that what happens nuclear power won't play at least into the creation of your universe? What about if you're a believer that world peace is achievable if only people wanted it enough -- do you think that would play in? Pretty much any political view you might hold, you can play it out optimistically or pessimistically, but it's going to have a rammification on what you write in SF.

Of course, there's an altoghether better reason not to criticize Crichton: he might write you into his next story as a baby rapist with a small penis. Perhaps his next book should be about an irresponsible writer who slanders his critics.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[ravenshrike]

Environmentalism got DDT banned. DDT is the best defense against Malaria. Malaria kills how many people a year again? Just because you don't like the truth of the matter is no reason to ignore it. Well, unless you like being petty.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[bberens]

Environmentalists are happy to kill people by banning everything from pesticides to genetically engineered foods, no matter how badly starving countries need these things. Environmentalism is an urban religion for liberal atheists, and so they justify their behavior as "right" or "just" and attack you as a heretic if you step outside the established biblical doctrine.

Environmentalists are no more evil than anyone else who put up trade embargoes against nations because their governments do evil things. Some must die for the better of the global community. That's the way it goes. It does suck if you're unfortunate enough to be on the short end of the stick evolutionarily speaking. And no, I'm not an environmentalist.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[BalanceOfJudgement]

How will this bill fuel innovation? ... What if it was acceptable to charge a million dollars for a single dose of a cure? The benefit of medical research would sky rocket and I'm sure more money would go into development.

Please tell me you're kidding. Nobody would pay for such a cure, except for the obscenely rich, and there are sufficiently few of them (and an even much smaller subset that would have AIDS) that it still wouldn't make the research worth it.

My question is simply, how do you ensure that forcing parts of research to be open to the public won't prevent companies from dumping money into that research? If a company discovers and goes through the painstaking research of finding "natural genes" then why shouldn't they be able to profit off that?

They CAN profit off it it - off the cure, not the research. Scientific research has ALWAYS been a humanist endeavor in that the research, the gain in knowledge itself, has always been considered public property, for the benefit of everyone. That is enlightened thinking.

Companies should not be able to "own" the very subject of the study itself - as Crichton himself says, that's like patenting gravity or snow. Completely ridiculous.

The consequence of that knowledge, however - the innovation that arises as a result of it - the combustion engine, the laser, the miracle cure for cancer - these things CAN and SHOULD be incentivized. But not the research itself, and I am disappointed that would you would argue such a point.. I've always liked your posts and thought you wiser than that.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Rei]

Scientific concensus does not mean truth. However, when a layperson who doesn't understand the issue needs to, it is by far their best bet to go with where the overwhelming majority of scientific viewpoints lie. Otherwise, you'd have us invest in alchemy companies instead of gold mines to produce gold. You'd have us try to get a spacecraft to Mars with magic instead of physics. You'd have the people looking through telescopes funded only to get accurate positions for astrologers. You'd replace hospital neurology departments with phrenology departments. You'd dump clinical trials for shamanism. The big-bang would be written out of scientific texts in favor of an Earth-centric universe. You might fund research on ways to better "dephlogisticate" air, or to delve deeper into the properties of the luminiferous ether.

If you're not well studied in the field, you're much less qualified to make judgements on the subject than those who are. And if the overwhelming majority of those who are tell you X, your best bet is definitely to go with X. Yes, there are always exceptions, where a very minority view turns out to be right after all. But those are exceptions. It's a bad bet to wager on them.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[SatanicPuppy]

Crichton has made his living writing books about science going too far, whether it's dinosaurs or robots, or nanotech, or time fricking travel. Every book has the same theme of rogue science, and you quote him basically saying the same thing, and I'm supposed to think that this guy is in any way science friendly? Jesus, he's like the modern day reincarnation of Mary Shelly.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Evilest Doer]

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political?

I would say the same thing about Ray Bradbury. He seems wholly enamoured of George W Bush. But at least, unlike Crichton and Card, he tends to stick to his writing and not get openly political. Perhaps it is because his last name begins with a "B" and not a "C".

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[fourchannel]

Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people? Maybe it's, he's a person. He is just like you and me in that he is a member of the human race. Should he want to give his thoughts on politics, who are you to tell him, 'no, stick to writing your books, your place in society does not condone political speaking.'

maybe you should reflect on why it is you have a problem, instead of pushing your beliefs about his lack of political worth on all of slashdot.

btw, I'm not saying that you cannot post here, or that you're totally wrong. I'm a person and I make mistakes in my thinking just like everyone else. =D

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[ring-eldest]

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people?

I happen to agree with you about Card. I love his books, but his political beliefs aren't any more influential to me than any other stranger's. That being said, Crichton (who graduated from Harvard Medical School) has a more influential (if not entirely unique) perspective on biological matters. His opinion on genetics, even in the political sphere, carries a lot more weight with me than those of someone without a medical degree.

If the trouble with a lot of people is that they cannot delineate between a person's public life and their other abilities. He/She's an incredible singer, so her opinion on taxes must be worth listening to. Don't make the same mistake you criticize others for; Crichton went to a prestigious medical school and earned the right for his opinions to carry a bit more weight with regards to subjects like this. His works of fiction are entirely separate and unrelated.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, help yourself to a big plate of DDT! (It's the gift that keeps on giving!)

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrchaotica]

It as gotten so bad that "consensus" (something antithetical to the scientific method) is now being pushed as a reason why we should all believe that man and man alone is responsible for Global warming!

This problem is inherent in the study of climate, because the scientific method is only really useful if you can devise an experiment to test your hypothesis. Obviously we can't actually do that with the climate because if the experiment fails we're all dead (and we don't have a spare planet to act as the control anyway), so relying on educated guesses by the scientists (in the form of simulations, statistical studies, etc.) is all we can do. Now, since most scientists (i.e., the ones actually qualified to study climate who aren't being paid by the oil industry) have come to a consensus, we really have no choice but to believe them.

Besides, hasn't even the oil industry admitted that it believes climate change is occurring (and is only arguing about what caused it)? If that's the case, then what we all need to realize is that it doesn't matter why it's happening, because it would suck for humanity regardless.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrchaotica]

Environmentalists are happy to kill people by banning everything from pesticides to genetically engineered foods, no matter how badly starving countries need these things.

Bullshit. The world has plenty of food (even if it were grown organically), it's just not distributed correctly.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Evilest Doer]

Environmentalists are happy to kill people by banning everything from pesticides to genetically engineered foods, no matter how badly starving countries need these things.

DDT and other pesticides have these little side effects like birth defects and increased cancer rates. The food shortages in most countries are based on political realities, such as horribly corrupt governments, and not on farming procedures. Plus, in the US, the government gives subsidies to farmers to *not* produce food since there would be too much on the market, thus driving down prices. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers, along with things like Bovine Growth Hormone, simply aren't needed for there to be an adequate food supply. A little good planning would go a lot farther than poisoning the Earth for the sake of the profits of corporations like Monsanto and Dow.

Environmentalism is an urban religion for liberal atheists, and so they justify their behavior as "right" or "just" and attack you as a heretic if you step outside the established biblical doctrine.

Now, really, you just sound like a fundie who is projecting onto others. It's the old "but they're just as crazy as we are, really!" gambit. Has it not occurred to you that maybe some people see what is so obviously going on with the environment and want to do something about it? Plus, all those poor starving people you pretend to care about won't be able to survive at all if the oceans are depleted, the water, air and soil are poisoned, and toxic chemicals are permeated throughout the entire food chain. Dealing with the political realities of the places with lots of starving people is how to solve most of the food shortage problem. Letting Monsanto get rich selling seeds for infertile plants is not.

Finally, I'm not an atheist and I'm not particularly urban (though I unfortunately live in a crowded city for the time being). In case you hadn't noticed, a lot of religious groups are getting into environmentalism. Actually, this has been going on for quite a long time, especially with deeply religious individuals in various environmental groups, but this sort of thing gets next to no coverage in the media. Nutballs like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are considered the "Christians" even though they are nothing more than fringe lunatics who think they have a direct line to God.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[background image]

I think that Crichton is probably an idiot, so we may be that much in agreement.

But to think that Shelley's work--and probably Crichton's too, though I can't say, not having read any of his books--is only a warning against the potential excesses of science is fantastically shallow. Frankenstein's creature can equally well be understood as political allegory or really, allegory for anything that might come back to bite you on the ass; think about the western (and other) powers training of the Afghan Mujahideen for example for example...

Literature is typically much more subtle than it seems when you just read the Cliff's Notes versions.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[kmweber]

Yup--and guess who's responsible for that?

That's right, the environmentalists, who insist on interfering with the most efficient and effective distribution method possible: the free market.

And organic agriculture can produce plenty of food, sure, if you're willing to settle for cutting down more rainforest to compensate for the lowered crop yields.

Everything's a trade-off. You should really listen to Thomas Sowell more often. He's generally right.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[kmweber]

There can't be any reasonable objection that it's happening, no--that's a matter of simple observation.

But the collectivists go further, saying that (a) man is causing it, (b) we can stop or reverse it, and (c) if we don't we're all going to die.

That's where it becomes ridiculous.

The common argument is "global temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution". What that doesn't tell you is that the systems and technology to record and collate the data necessary to be able to legitimately make such a claim has also only been around since the Industrial Revolution--so for all we know, it's been going on for much longer than that.

As George Will pointed out in a recent column (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newswee k/), "Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs."
No, Will's not a climatologist. But no special education is required to figure out that if X happened before Y ever existed, you can't blame X on Y.

What it comes down to, is a trade-off. In this particular instance, it's a trade of a known value (economic development and knowledge that has produced so much wealth) for an unknown value (trying to fix something that may be impossible to fix that might not have been caused by us, even though fixing it may be unnecessary or even harmful). What sane, moral individual would make such a trade-off?

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Environmentalism is an urban religion for liberal atheists, and so they justify their behavior as "right" or "just" and attack you as a heretic if you step outside the established biblical doctrine.

Good thing you didn't lump us Europeans in with these crazy, crazy 'liberal atheists' - I have a feeling you'd have ended up presenting your side as more Catholic than the Pope.

Captcha is 'choirs' - how appropriate.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Luyseyal]

Exactly. And as a man of the polis, you share your ideas, opinions, etc. I mean, why else would this aphorism exist: "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

-l

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[kmweber]

DDT and other pesticides have these little side effects like birth defects and increased cancer rates.

Simply not true.

Chemical pesticides and fertilizers, along with things like Bovine Growth Hormone, simply aren't needed for there to be an adequate food supply.

Not if you're willing to settle for less rainforest or wilderness--and more crowding in the cities--to compensate for reduced crop yields, no. Not to mention higher land prices and more labor required for agriculture, taking it away from other endeavors.

And the United States is only one country. It is those same chemicals you decry that enable the US to export foodstuffs worldwide, by keeping food fresh and allowing it to be grown in large enough quantities to make export worthwhile. Without the US's massive agricultural output, prices would go up even higher than they are now that they are propped up by the subsidies (which I oppose on moral grounds anyway, but that's beside the point).

Dealing with the political realities of the places with lots of starving people is how to solve most of the food shortage problem. Letting Monsanto get rich selling seeds for infertile plants is not.

But that's how to solve it--free markets, technology, and strong IP protections.

You fail.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Syberghost]

Crichton attacked science for political reasons.

Dr. Crichton, a scientist and medical doctor who happens to write fiction, attacked bad science for scientific reasons. It's not his fault the bad science is done for political reasons.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[kmweber]

I should elaborate on DDT.

DDT breaks down chemically and leaves the food chain after a few days.

The other concerns have been simply shown to be not true, or based on flawed methodology (yeah, studies have statistically correlated DDT and thinner eggshells, but only when the mothers have been deprived of calcium).

In the end, it's another trade-off. No, it's not perfectly safe. It's not totally risk-free. But that's life--get used to it. The lives it will save vastly outnumber the lives it will take. And there's no solution that will save the same or more lives while taking fewer.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Crichton has made his living writing books about science going too far, whether it's dinosaurs or robots, or nanotech, or time fricking travel.

Minor quibble... Crichton has made his living writing books about human greed, arrogance, political games, and amoral sociopaths. The science in his more popular books is there to let him tell an interesting story, and maybe make a point or two about how dirty rotten bastards will screw up anything if you give them the chance.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[geekoid]

"Environmentalism is an urban religion for liberal atheists, "

While not the most ignorant statement ever on /.

I live in Oregon, very liberal, very pro enviroment. Most enviromentalist I talk to want genetically enginneered food tested, and I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against this.

I haven't even heard Norman Borlaug, who I admire, present a good arguement against testing.

Just because breading wheat with wheat has no side effects, but when you bread wheat dna with frod DNA, i think it would be prudent to test it, don't you?

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[BTWR]

I have no idea why you were modded flamebait (well, we both do actually), but you're absolutely correct. Science != Consensus. Plain and simple.

Crichton may very-well be 100% wrong on his theories. But if so, that will be because his research was poor, not because "a lot of people with degrees disagree."

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No he isn't - Mary Shelley had talent.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[tcoop25]

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political?

From Wikipedia: "He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964. Crichton was also initiated into the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. He graduated at Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969 and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, in 1969-1970. In 1988, he was Visiting Writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

I don't think it is fair to group him with all authors, singers, and actors. He does have some fairly decent credentials.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Decaff]

He is not a scientist - he gave that up decades ago. He is a writer of science fiction containing laughably poor science. He is not qualified to judge the science he is criticising.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

One minor nit: The chemical byproducts of DDT decomposition can be harmful, but not to humans. It pretty much only effects birds at the top of the food chain, and only then when you're using metric assloads of DDT.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[d3ac0n]

Scientific concensus does not mean truth. However, when a layperson who doesn't understand the issue needs to, it is by far their best bet to go with where the overwhelming majority of scientific viewpoints lie.

Two issues with this, and the rest of your post, actually.

One: Michael Chrichton is not exactly a lay person. He is a certified MD, and a medical scientist. He does not currently practice, but he IS a scientist, and more than capable of studying the data on his own and coming up with a trustworthy conclusion, or to make comments on what he perceives as misconduct in the scientific community.

Two: You are jumping to some pretty ridiculous conclusions about what I would have our society become. As I stated, consensus in the scientific community is bad, especially when not all the data is there. Again, Science must be independently verifiable. Using magic to travel to Mars is not independently verifiable. Nor are ANY of the other ludicrous statements you make. I clearly stated this in my post above. Apparently it's much more fun to troll by making baseless accusations than actually READING WHAT I WROTE.

Currently, the concept of "Solely Man-Made Global Warming" is not independently verifiable! The entire discussion smacks of politics, and that's what's got a bee in Mr. Chrichton's bonnet. This is NOT an outrageous request to make. We simply want All the data available, and have it put to a totally open, and independently verifiable test. Are you aware that Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, has YET to release his data and methods for peer review? What kind of science is that? No review? Community consensus without discussion? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE, IT IS POLITICS. Clear and simple.

All I and Mr. Chrichton want is clean science. No consensus, no politics. Capice?

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[coredog64]

J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University in California, has taught biology and entomology there for 43 years. He is a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences.

Now Dr. Edwards had peculiar ways of making his point. He would eat a teaspoon of DDT in front of the students in his chemistry class to make a point about how harmless DDT is to humans. Moreover, he would eat DDT in front of members of the media to drive home the point that they have the story, on DDT, all wrong.

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002060. html

(I've heard the story many times -- that's just the most convenient link via Google)

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrchaotica]

That's right, the environmentalists, who insist on interfering with the most efficient and effective distribution method possible: the free market.

Okay, we'll blame people who insist on interfering with the free market. So that would also include the corn lobby, the pesticide lobby, charities, people who want the U.S. to provide any sort of foreign aid, militant organizations and other assorted hoodlums in those impoverished countries, the U.N., the concept of government itself, etc.

Happy now?

And organic agriculture can produce plenty of food, sure, if you're willing to settle for cutting down more rainforest to compensate for the lowered crop yields.

First of all, you're going to have to cite a source on that before I believe you. Second, the point I was trying to make was that the world produces enough food even with lower yields, but it doesn't get to the people who need it because of gluttony, waste and politics.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[rbanffy]

Now, since most scientists (i.e., the ones actually qualified to study climate who aren't being paid by the oil industry) have come to a consensus, we really have no choice but to believe them.

Well... People do have a choice. It's not a clever one, but it's a choice.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrchaotica]

1. man is causing it

   Irrelevant to the sitation.

2. we can stop or reverse it

   We know that greenhouse gases contribute to it (hence their name); obviously, getting rid of greenhouse gases would therefore contribute to stopping or reversing it. Besides, either humanity can influence the climate, or it can't. If it can, then it can influence it in the other direction too. If it can't, well, we're screwed. However, since we don't know the answer yet we should still try (as the cost of averting disaster (see next item) is worth it).

3. if we don't we're all going to die

   Of course we're not "all going to die," but it's almost certain that it would cause a huge inconvenience (i.e., economic disaster) to the human race if we had to re-arrange our whole civilization because our coastal cities flooded and rainfall and temperature patterns shifted (causing the distribution of arable land to change).

As George Will pointed out in a recent column (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newswee k/), "Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs." No, Will's not a climatologist. But no special education is required to figure out that if X happened before Y ever existed, you can't blame X on Y.

Again, this is irrelevant. Who cares what caused global warming?

Here's an analogy: the dinosaurs didn't cause a big asteroid to smash into the Earth and wipe them out, yet they're still dead. If they had seen it coming, do you think it would have made sense for them to stand around saying "well, it's not our fault, so we shouldn't do anything about it?"

What it comes down to, is a trade-off. In this particular instance, it's a trade of a known value (economic development and knowledge that has produced so much wealth) for an unknown value (trying to fix something that may be impossible to fix that might not have been caused by us, even though fixing it may be unnecessary or even harmful). What sane, moral individual would make such a trade-off?

"Unknown value?" "Impossible, unnecessary or even harmful to fix?" I hate to break it to you, but even if we don't "know" the exact value we can still estimate it, and the current estimates seem pretty damn big. We can also make educated guesses about whether it's impossible, unnecessary or harmful to fix, and those guesses are generally negative (i.e., it is possible, necessary, and beneficial to fix).

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[danpsmith]

Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people?

Why does anyone? Why do Slashdot posters get all political trying to push their ideologies on other people? People are, by nature, "political animals" as Aristotle suggested 2300 years ago. -l

Not only that, but in my opinion politics were never designed to be a specialized field full of aristocrats. Politics, is, by its very nature the business of the people in a democracy. The press gives these people the magnitude they use in expressing their views, don't blame them for having one. Everyone earns their right to an opinion by being a citizen of this nation. If you don't like that, maybe you should try a communist country where the only people who get to have political views are those that are authorized to have them.

I'm so sick of the "what do they know?" argument. What does anyone know? Anyone who follows the news knows that politicians hardly know the subject matter of the bills they vote on and they are the ones that are voting. If a celebrity can come on record with a lot of media attention and shine light onto a subject such as this one, which is, honestly, worthy of attention, and garner popular support, perhaps the politicians responsible for addressing these issues will take a second look at them before throwing them in the circular file.

Politicians often don't even read the bills they vote on. Just because someone isn't a full-time politician doesn't mean he knows nothing. In fact, it's probably the opposite.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrseth]

"Currently, the concept of "Solely Man-Made Global Warming" is not independently verifiable! The entire discussion smacks of politics, and that's what's got a bee in Mr. Chrichton's bonnet. This is NOT an outrageous request to make. We simply want All the data available, and have it put to a totally open, and independently verifiable test. Are you aware that Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, has YET to release his data and methods for peer review? What kind of science is that? No review? Community consensus without discussion? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE, IT IS POLITICS. Clear and simple.

...not to mention wrong:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[kmweber]

Okay, we'll blame people who insist on interfering with the free market. So that would also include the corn lobby, the pesticide lobby, charities, people who want the U.S. to provide any sort of foreign aid, militant organizations and other assorted hoodlums in those impoverished countries, the U.N., the concept of government itself, etc.

Happy now?

Yup.

Not the answer you were expecting to get, is it?

First of all, you're going to have to cite a source on that before I believe you.

I submit that you already do believe me. You would not have said "The world has plenty of food (even if it were grown organically)" unless you accept that total organic food production would result in less food being produced.

Second, the point I was trying to make was that the world produces enough food even with lower yields

Certainly, more food is produced at present than is needed to feed the entire world population at current levels. So, yes, food production could be diminished somewhat and still suffice.

But, obviously, there's a limit to that. If food production is lowered enough, it will fall below that level. Without modern agricultural technology, and without increasing the land devoted to agriculture, the amount of food produced if all food was grown organically would be WAY below that level.

You can cut down the rainforest, or you can use modern technology. It's a trade-off. It's reality. You can choose to accept it or not, but reality has a way of biting you in the ass if you choose to reject it.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Chrichton is not exactly a lay person. He is a certified MD, and a medical scientist. He does not currently practice, but he IS a scientist, and more than capable of studying the data on his own and coming up with a trustworthy conclusion, or to make comments on what he perceives as misconduct in the scientific community.

As a lay person, I have no problem finding scientific inaccuracies in every Crichton book. So while I do find him to be entertaining, I would never assign to him an adjective like trustworthy in regards to scientific inquiry.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[BigLug]

Interesting point .. I haven't heard anything from Bova, Bear or Benford, Ian M Banks, Baxter, MZ Bradley, heard nothing from them either.

* Not saying they haven't said anything .. I just haven't heard it!

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[ErikTheRed]

Kinda surprised you wrote this, because overall I consider you to be one of Slashdot's better commentators.

Scientific concensus does not mean truth. However, when a layperson who doesn't understand the issue needs to, it is by far their best bet to go with where the overwhelming majority of scientific viewpoints lie.

Yeah, that worked out so well for the flat-earth types. The problem is that human beings have difficulty with uncertainty. It's 2007 and we want our answers, dammit! We want to know The Truth (whether or not we can handle The Truth is another issue). People would rather know The World Is Going To End than have to wonder about it (check any history book and most religions for that matter). The problem is that we don't have all of the answers. Some we won't know for a few years, some we won't know in our lifetimes, and some we may not know ever. The problem is that in order to fulfill popular demand, Big Science is marketing things like consensus (not to mention some pretty half-baked research) as The Truth. And if The "Truth" happens to coincide with certain political interests... you generate some pretty impressive hot air (rimshot, please). Most of Science has sold out, and to every side of every debate. It's almost impossible to know who to trust ... except when you go back to the good old Scientific Method and demand full disclosure and repeatable results.

I don't know if the Global Warming crowd is right. The problem is that they don't have The Truth yet (verifiable, repeatable experiments that generate verifiable predictions), and they're not only screaming at the top of their lungs that they do, they're visciously attacking anyone who disagrees with them. And that, my friend, is where they cross over from being the heirs of the Age of Enlightenment to the heirs of The Spanish Inquisition. The main difference being that they generally draw the line at character assasination these days.

The bottom line is that people need to learn to be ok with not knowing what we don't know. We need to be open to possibilities without the need to draw unwarranted conclusions - basically maintain the classical "liberal" mindset (before the word "liberal" became tainted with politics). We needs to discourage other from the siren song of clinging to certainties that might not be real. And we need to be respectful to those who have the strength to disagree with the status quo and strike out in new directions.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mattcoz]

You're talking about two completely different things here, morality and legality. The morality of charging anything you want for a cure for AIDS has nothing to do with the ability to patent genes. If it was morally acceptable then they would still charge it.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrchaotica]

But, obviously, there's a limit to that. If food production is lowered enough, it will fall below that level. Without modern agricultural technology, and without increasing the land devoted to agriculture, the amount of food produced if all food was grown organically would be WAY below that level.

First of all, I have no problem with "modern agricultural technology." Although I do consider myself an environmentalist, I don't consider myself a Luddite.

Second, the whole reason why environmentalists protest against things is that they're harmful in the long run. If they weren't, there'd be nothing to protest about!

Third, farmland is finite whether "modern agricultural technology" is employed or not. So, either your suggestion is just as limited as mine, or you're asserting that technology will continue to allow production to increase indefinitely. For the latter to be true, then the technology must be sustainable (by definition), in which case we agree.

So either you're agreeing with me in that we need to use sustainable (i.e., environmentally responsible) technology, or you're agreeing with me that food production has a fixed upper limit (and therefore we might as well reach that limit in an environmentally responsible way).

You're right, I did already believe you -- or rather, you already believed me. : )

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Evil Pete]

I have read the article that most people usually refer to when they say "read what he said about global warming". Well, you know the thing is he doesn't actually say anything about global warming. He launches into an attack on the scientists involved. At no time does he discuss the evidence. It was quite an ordeal getting through it because it was so reminiscent when I used to read Creationist books in order to attack them. I once really liked Crichton, not just his fiction but some of his other stuff .... but now the guy has zero credibility with me.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[ozeki]

So the fact that 75% of the cause of Green House gases are from Electricity production and it would be easier to change a power plant than convincing the masses to give up their cars is still irrelevant right. Lets still just go after SUV's ,build solar shades and bash an Author since it doesn't fit your Politics. When a Vice-President gets involved its political.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, the concept of "Solely Man-Made Global Warming" is not independently verifiable!

Given that there is no control planet we can use to apply a truly scientific approach to confirming whether we're solely responsible for global warming, the whole debate needs to be approached from a slightly different perspective. Think the difference between a criminal and a civil trial...we need to believe what the preponderance of evidence shows, not proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

Regardless, the question of who is to blame is irrelevant. Our society is too concerned with placing blame when we should instead be concerned with fixing the problem. When it comes to global warming, there are only two (rather broad) areas of study that matter: 1) Is global warming an actual problem and 2) Assuming 1 is true, how do we fix it. Neither of these questions can be answered in a truly scientific manner since we cannot isolate any one cause to show it's true effect. It's just not possible.

In short, you're never going to get "clean science" on that issue because its study is inherantly unscientific. You're never going to get anything except someones best educated guess to these questions. Decisions are going to have to be made based on incomplete data. Enter politics.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[plunge]

Good grief, being an MD is not even remotely the same thing as being a real research scientist, let alone a credible climatologist. I love my wife, and she is an MD, but she doesn't know anything at all about the philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, climatology, and so forth.

Crichton is not only not qualified, but demonstrably incompetent when it comes to his evaluations of the evidence in climate science.

Consensus in science is a reliable way for a layperson to get a sense of what the best science is at the moment, because science IS about the evidence, and the bulk of scientists stick to what the evidence establishes and then branch out from there. Most of the accusations that Critchton makes about misconduct are document bullplop and little different from the misrepresentations of biology the ID school engages in.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[aggiefalcon01]

You seem to have forgotten something in this discussion over science & politics.

Global warming is neither!!! Global Warming is a religion: it is taken on faith, it has its own commandments, it has its judgement day, and its savior (heaven help us) in the personage of ... well, Gore, and every other idiot celebrity who is simultaneously NOT a scientist, and yet an expert on Global Warming.

And you're not allowed to attack religions ... so attacking Global Warming goes right out the window. Which is great news for socialists, they've never been fans of open, honest, intelligent debate.

Global Warming is a religion. As soon as you realize this, it all makes much more sense. Kinda.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you fail.

1. You failed to take notice of the fact (pointed out by the GP) that farmers in the US (and the EU (not pointed out)) are paid to not produce food. The EU stores and destroys masses of food.
2. It is not DDT that allows the massive agricultural output of the US (and EU). The temperate climate helps. However the chemical fertilizers are a big boost also, they allow farmers in developed countries to farm in ways their forefathers couldn't and still claim the yield their forefathers had to aquire through farming skill.
3. GM crops are not the answer to anything other than biotech profit margins. The developed world produces far more food than it needs, even though the governments of the developed world actively discourage food production. If food production were unchecked there would easily be enough food without GM induced slavery.
4. IP protections are inconsistent with a free market. They are, by definition, a state interference in the free flow of production.
5. Strong-arming farmers into buying infertile seeds (which tend to become fertile when it comes to cross-breeding with neighbouring farms, leading to Monsanto and the like to demand the neighbouring farm pay a license for the IP) for more than the ordinary fertile seeds they would usually buy (if they lacked a seed stock) leaving them having to buy more next year, is NOT the answer.

Any questions?

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Rakishi]

One: Michael Chrichton is not exactly a lay person. He is a certified MD, and a medical scientist. He does not currently practice, but he IS a scientist, and more than capable of studying the data on his own and coming up with a trustworthy conclusion, or to make comments on what he perceives as misconduct in the scientific community. ...being a scientists is worth about as much as shit unless the area is one you've studied. This is especially true for areas that are rapidly changing. For example a genetics biologist 15 years ago would be doing things a lot differently than one today, hell even microarray which are damn popular didn't exist then I believe. In complex topics "studying data" is worthless unless you're a genius and have months to devote to the issue to understand everything involved.

And that not even including statistics or data analysis which most "scientists" are incompetent at unless it's a really cookie cutter method. That's why you have groups working together with a statistician being part of that group if the methods used aren't generic. I mean there are articles prominently published in famous journals (with millions of government money behind the studies) whose stats can be decimated by a first year stats master's student.

As I stated, consensus in the scientific community is bad, especially when not all the data is there.

Oh? Then christ, we need to get rid of all science or make a lot more people scientists as a lot of it has a consensus. I mean god forbid scientists believe in that evil evolution, I mean we need to lobotomize some so they stop believing in it.

Again, Science must be independently verifiable.

Yes, by other scientists in the field. A consensus means that given available data the vast majority of those scientists agree with the results. This usually involves multiple independent studies that arrive at the same conclusion and a lack of visible flaws in those studies. This may change with time and details usually are argued over however at any given time that's the best we have. There is always the potential that they're wrong but working under that assumption is idiotic as we'd never move forward, medicine would not have advanced in the past century at all with that sort of mindset (mostly we had no clue what we were doing).

Currently, the concept of "Solely Man-Made Global Warming" is not independently verifiable!

The existence of a consensus among scientists indicates that they agree and have verified it.

We simply want All the data available, and have it put to a totally open, and independently verifiable test. Are you aware that Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, has YET to release his data and methods for peer review?

You apparently aren't a scientist as it's very common for the data to not be released. Only with the internet is that changing.

What kind of science is that? No review? Community consensus without discussion? THIS IS NOT SCIENCE, IT IS POLITICS. Clear and simple.

They review what is available, normally independent verification involves gathering NEW data or independently gathering the same sort of data then repeating the previous results. Using the same data is in many ways bad science as you're not supposed to assume the data is correct or unbiased

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[DreamingReal]

I mean, why else would this aphorism exist: "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one."

In my experience with daily conversations among a wide cross-section of people, another version I have heard on occasion seems to be more apt: "Opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one and they all stink."

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[mrchaotica]

Huh? Since when was I saying anything about one source of greenhouse gases vs. another? I completely agree that power plants (mostly coal-fired ones) are a huge problem, and that we should solve the problem as a whole by whatever is the most practical means (rather than picking out a specific little part and myopically focusing on it).

Of course, you've got to admit that a lot of the "low-hanging fruit" regarding power plants has already been plucked -- aside from the old ones, most already do have fairly extensive emissions equipment.

Incidentally, one problem I see that's common to environmentalists and not-environmentalists alike is that they all adopt one "pet technology" and try to push it as a "silver bullet" solution to the problem. For example, Bush et. al. keeps pushing hydrogen to the exclusion of all else, some people dismiss hydrogen completely and focus solely on corn ethanol, etc. That's stupid -- the real solution is going to be a combination of everything (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal/hydroelectric, geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel, batteries, fuel cells, ultracapacitors, etc.) and we really need to fund research in all of it instead of picking one thing and ignoring (and cutting the funding of!) the rest.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[StikyPad]

Currently, the concept of "Solely Man-Made Global Warming" is not independently verifiable!

And it never will be, until we can make our own planets and use them for experiments. Nobody questions that the sun will turn into a red dwarf, despite the fact that we've never seen it happen. Some science involves extrapolating past data to give us a likely indivation of future performance. It's no guarantee, but it would be foolish to simply discard the data.

I'm probably more skeptical of the detriment of climate change than most people. As long as the process doesn't runaway and we make changes over the next century, I think humanity will be fine, (and possibly better off than before if conditions get wetter and greener, as I suspect they will). Nonetheless, it's difficult to argue that humanity has NOT made substantial contributions to this process of change, to the point where other factors are essentially irrelevant, and that if we do not take action, conditions could become extremely inhospitable to our species. It's a risk that's not worth taking, especially since there's little-to-no upside to remaining dependant on fossil fuels.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[jc42]

Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people?

Well, I don't know where you live, but here in the US the reason is called the First Ammendment, which includes this idea called "Free Speech". Authors, singers, actors, etc. have the right to say any damned thing they want because there's nothing in the US Constitution saying that the First Ammendment doesn't apply to them.

Probably the reason that such people are allowed to exercise their First Ammendment rights is the fear that, if we give in to the temptation to silence such idiots, the next thing will be that we'll be included in the group that's silenced. There are reasons (learnable by reading a bit of history) that this is widely considered a bad idea in general. Many of us have learned that it's better to allow the idiots to continue speaking, since the alternative is allowing the government to silence us all. It's a lot easier to sort out the fluff and dross than it is to find the smart things that have been hidden from us.

Anyway, some of these folks are entertaining. I mean, I've found all the hoopla around the Dixie Chicks' political comments tremendously funny to read about. I got a big laugh when I read of their big award a few days ago. Lots of us think that such entertainment is valuable in and of itself.

Michael Crighton can be quite entertaining. Now if only someone could find a way to make Al Gore entertaining ...

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Rei]

You stated:

Yeah, that worked out so well for the flat-earth types.

First off, this is incorrect. Scientists have known that the Earth was round since they first applied geometry to the heavens. The Greeks determined its circumference very accurately, and it was widely recognized as a fact by the Greek scientific community. They did this by finding a point in Egypt where the noon sun on the summer solstice cast no shadow (the equator) and comparing this to the size of a shadow cast back in Greece. Knowing the distance to the equator and comparing that to the angle of the shadow, it's simply a geometry problem to calculate the radius of the Earth, and thus its circumference. Most modern people have too low of an opinion of ancient science simply because the ancient world doesn't look like a steampunk flick. :) In fact, one Greek scientist (Aristarchus) developed a heliocentric model of the solar system. He determined a very rough distance measure to the sun and was able to tell that it was much bigger than Earth. Finding it unreasonable that such a huge body would orbit around one so small, he decided that it was more likely that the Earth revolved around the sun. While agreeing with his size estimates, his theory was criticized on the fact that if the Earth revolved around the sun, there should be parallax with the stars, which didn't match their observations. Aristarchus's theory was that they were just so far away that we couldn't measure it (correct answer). However, the distances required were so great that his theory didn't gain widespread acceptance.

Anyways, in the classical world, the round Earth was widely accepted by the scientific community. Contrary to popular belief, Columbus didn't meet opposition for his voyage from "flat earthers". Rather, he met with a scientific board to discuss his proposed trip. Columbus had consulted the old Greek texts to establish the radius of the Earth. However, he had a mistaken notion of the length of a stadia, giving him a result that the world was much smaller than it was. The council reviewing his request knew the proper measure for the radius of the Earth, and determined (accurately) that his proposal to sail to India was bunk. The crown funded him anyways.

Irregardless of this: there are, and have been exceptions. Which is why I wrote:

Yes, there are always exceptions, where a very minority view turns out to be right after all. But those are exceptions. It's a bad bet to wager on them.

I listed some of those in my post. For example, phlogiston. In case you're not familiar with it, the phlogiston theory stated that fire was due to a substance (phlogiston) leaving matter. Under the theory, air could become saturated with phlogiston, which was why things would cease to burn after a time in an enclosed container. When pure oxygen was discovered, it was initially referred to in some circles as "dephlogisticated air" since things would burn longer in it. Rusting was the slow release of phlogiston. Phlogiston had mass, and things got lighter when they burned. It was a perfectly sound theory, given the available evidence. It was also wrong. When contrary evidence was pointed out (objects that get heavier when they burn, etc), the theory fell out of scientific circles relatively quickly (for the times; communication back then was rather slow, and the scientific field much smaller).

This is an "exception". However, exceptions are just that: exceptions. They're rather rare. In the history of paleontology as it pertains to hominid evolution, I can only name two confirmed, major blunders -- yet paleontology has analyzed thousands of hominid fossils, and it is at least as difficult of a field as climate change to study (there are a *lot* of gaps in the evidence, and it's very hard to "replicate" results). From another perspective: go back and look at old Nobel Prize results (things that were seen as of great importance and widely recognized by the scientific community -- in the

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[tenchiken]

If you are so pathetic that you can't be a fan of someone you don't agree with politically, I suspect he would rather not have you as a reader.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[king-manic]

Enviromentalists got DDT banned in the states. DDT is not the best defense against malaria in the states. Malaria kills how many americans a year again? Just because you don't like the truth of the matter is no reason to ignore it. Well, unless you like being petty. DDT is still used and funded in many third world locations. Try to direct yourself to betetr education. North american enviromentalists tend to be knee jerk and often push for unessacary things but they have some use as well. They are not all unthinking waves of hippies. Certainly some things like the bad rep of nuclear is due to mis information but others like banning DDT in N.A. where it's nto that nessacary isn't that bad.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[aybiss]

The sad bit is that we seem to listen to these people rather than just asking some other random person off the street to comment. Both people have an equally valid viewpoint, assuming of course you find equally informed people. In fact if you think about most celebrities they probably shouldn't be allowed to have any views in the first place.

At least it gets people on Slashdot riled enough to post their own views, I suppose. Maybe we should start submitting New Weekly stories on how [current top 40/blockbuster personality] 'loves the environment'. These people are always stating the vacuously obvious in order to appeal to their audience, so we'd have plenty to work with.

Oh wait, I forgot 90% of our stories come from some idiot IT industy figure's blog...

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

another version I have heard on occasion seems to be more apt: "Opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one and they all stink."

That's much better than "Opinions are like assholes. I'll show you where you can shove yours."

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if the Global Warming crowd is right. The problem is that they don't have The Truth yet (verifiable, repeatable experiments that generate verifiable predictions)

Hey, but they have computer simulations and some weak correlations. How could a computer simulation ever be wrong, and how could a correlation not prove causation? Therefore, it is fact.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Fred_A]

Yet when scientists get together they get a fairly unanimous answer that the global warming is at least partly man made, and when politicians (US, mostly) get together, you get the opposite opinion.

Oddly enough Chrichton sides with the politicians.

It's all fine to be for science, but he can't just wish the facts away because for some reason he doesn't like the eco-movements and wants to keep on driving his SUV around (or whatever his reason is). He acts like a politician, not a scientist.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[jc42]

Currently, the concept of "Solely Man-Made Global Warming" is not independently verifiable!

You might want to work on rephrasing that. The word "Solely" there is instantly seen by many readers as a strawman indicator. That is, it flags an argument based on attacking a parody of the opponent's claims.

In this case, few if any scientists make the claim that the observed global warming trend is solely due to human activity. Rather, they are studying the phenomenon, and trying to estimate just how much of it is due to human activity. The "dispute" in scientific circles deals with the estimates of this number, which various researchers (or their models) have estimated to be from 50% to 115%. Most seem to be in the 80% - 100% range, with error bars of several percent.

And, of course, that's only dealing with the recent warming. There has been an understanding for some time that "global warming" has been a fact of life on our planet for billions of years. The physicists tell us that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is about 278K (5C). Several decades of measurement from satellites have established that the Earth's actual mean temperature is about 295K (22C). The 17-degree difference is well understood to be almost entirely from our "greenhouse" atmosphere that acts as a heat buffer. It lets in sunlight easily but impedes the escape of heat, resulting in an equilibrium temperature higher than expected of a rocky planet in our orbit around our sun.

But the political battle doesn't deal with this; it's about the marginal change over the past century or so. In the recent 2 or 3 decades, the mean temperature has been rising quite rapidly (by historical standards), and scientists have been studying the phenomenon. There is fairly good agreement from the research that most of this recent warming is due almost entirely to human activity. The mechanisms are by now fairly well understood. The exact fraction is in dispute, yes. But the dispute isn't whether the fraction is zero or nonzero. The dispute is over how close to 100% the fraction is.

However, few scientists would seriously argue that the warming is "solely" of human cause. That baseline 22-degree warming clearly goes at least a billion of years, and can't be caused by human activity. Humans can only be responsible for the warming above that baseline. So far, that's only about a degree (plus or minus).

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[dylan_-]

Now Dr. Edwards had peculiar ways of making his point. He would eat a teaspoon of DDT in front of the students in his chemistry class to make a point about how harmless DDT is to humans. Moreover, he would eat DDT in front of members of the media to drive home the point that they have the story, on DDT, all wrong.

You know, I can't help thinking that that story would sound so much better if he was still alive...

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[jc42]

Yeah, that worked out so well for the flat-earth types.

First off, this is incorrect. Scientists have known that the Earth was round since they first applied geometry to the heavens. The Greeks determined its circumference very accurately, and it was widely recognized as a fact by the Greek scientific community. ...

Good summary. It's probably worth pointing out that, in addition to scientists and engineers, there's a third occupation that has long understood the world's shape: sailors.

If you spend any time sailing around on a body of water big enough to have a horizon, you figure it out fairly quickly. As you sail away from a place, things disappear from the bottom up, with the hilltops the last things to go. As you approach a place, things appear from the top down. First you see mountain tops, then lower hills, then the tops of trees and buildings, and finally the shoreline as you get very close. This happens no matter what direction you're sailing. It doesn't take a genius to integrate this into an understanding that you're sailing around on the surface of a sphere.

This doesn't give you the Earth's size, of course, only its shape. But there was a cute puzzle in Scientific American years ago: Using only technology available to the ancient Greek and Roman engineers, and standing in one place, measure the size of the Earth. The answer is surprisingly simple (though you do need to know a bit about the measuring tools available to those engineers). If nobody else answers it in a few days (and I don't forget about it ;-), maybe I'll post the answer.

The technique of using two wells (or two gnomons) at different latitudes is also an elegant solution, but it requires travel. The same measuring equipment could have given the size to someone standing still in the vicinity of Alexandria.

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Nutballs like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are considered the "Christians" even though they are nothing more than fringe lunatics who think they have a direct line to God.

Aren't all Christians "lunatics who think they have a direct line to God"?

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[DarkVader]

Actually, the power plant/large coal burning operation scrubbers that have been installed only take out the other pollutants, not the carbon dioxide.

One theory has it that they may actually be making the greenhouse problem worse, because the particulates were having a moderating effect on the CO2 emissions. (That's not to say that the scrubbers should be turned off, the particulates had their own nasty effects, but the scrubbers aren't an attempt to do anything about the greenhouse problem.)

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[Anonymous Coward]

Please realize that there are different degrees of disagreement. If Hitler had been a great painter, I might have appreciated his paintings, but I'd feel conflicted about calling myself a "fan". (I sincerely apologize for invoking Godwin's law, here, and I don't mean to compare this writer to Hitler in any way, I simply needed a figure I'd be sure that nearly all readers would have nothing but contempt for.)

I've never read anything by this writer, but from what I've read of him, his latest books are pretty much political polemics, so it wouldn't be surprising if a person to whom his arguments seemed fallacious would see what's left of the novel as pretty poor literature.

(Incidentally, I rather do feel this way about Rudyard Kipling. The man clearly wrote some "technically" great poems, and The Jungle Book was a nice read as a kid, but his imperialist and militaristic bent would make it impossible for me to consider myself a "fan".)

Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut

[kellenspapa]

DDT is a good example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When it was used indiscriminantly 40 or 50 years ago it led to major problems (the near loss of bald eagles is the most striking example). However, it could play a huge, and relatively safe role in reducing deaths from malaria and other mosquito born diseases in the tropics. Now that we understand its unintended consequences better, they can be largely avoided.

As is typical of people when they are frightened by environmentalists, or dieticians, or politicians, they overreacted. Consequently we lost a potent, and potentially dangerous, but useful pesticide.

Any sort of extremism has a high probability of leading to bad ends--religious, political, environmental. People need to learn to view environmental extremism with the same skepticism with which they view religious or political extremism.

Re:I wish that he had written this...

[Reverend528]

I wish he had written this instead of Next. That book is unreadable.

from his book, "Next"

[Red Herring]

This is largely based on his book "Next", a pretty darn good novel based on what can go wrong when bio-patenting is taken to an extreme. Good book.

Re:from his book, "Next"

[insert337]

I Agree. I read Next about a month ago..Very good book..Makes you really think if that really happens then we will be in a shit creek!

Re:from his book, "Next"

[MozillaMike]

Sure the book "Next" was how bio-patenting went wrong, and "Timeline" was how time travel went wrong, and "Congo" was how monkeys went wrong and "Jurrasic Park" and "Lost world" were how dinosaurs went wrong....

Re:from his book, "Next"

[cephyn]

I dunno I didn't think it was that good. Jurassic Park was a good, fun book with a message buried in it. Next is a message with a fun book buried in it. I think Crichton has gotten more desperate over the years for people to listen to him.

State of Fear == book of silly

[hey]

I have liked Crichton's work for a long time but State of Fear was soo stupid
I can never read him again. It all about dening global warming which is a bit nuts but
the worst thing: it was a really silly story. The characters are so flat and their motivations
make no sense. Then there is the guy who is obviously there to give Crichton point of view.
And does he ever - about 99 times. OK, I get it! But then there is an afterword of "fact"
which goes on about the very same points. Yes we heard you the first zillion times.
Very unsubtle and not convincing.

Simple solution:

[PFI_Optix]

A law stating that any genetic pattern found to exist in any natural organism cannot be patented. If the pattern is patented and then found in nature, it is immediately voided.

I don't want to get hit for patent infringement because I decided to have kids and just happen to possess a genetic pattern someone claims to own...and don't think they wouldn't do it if they could.

Re:Simple solution:

[TheLink]

Our lawyers would like to discuss with you further on your unauthorized reproduction of our intellectual property.

In the meantime please be aware that Augmented Genetics Technology Corp owns your first-born (and any of your future progeny).

You should have read the EULA before you got that "super enhancer" DNA treatment.

You swear you never went for that treatment? Yeah right, you must have gone to some Pirate clinic for illegal treatment.

You claim it must have been some viral infection you caught that somehow altered your DNA?

Yeah right, that never happens (even though we do use viruses as part of the treatment to insert the new DNA, the viruses have been crippled and will _never_ spread).

Re:Simple solution:

[Creedo]

Why is this modded funny? Ask Monsanto about it.

Why should we listen to this guy, you ask.

[techstar25]

The article summary should have at least mentioned his M.D. Some background info on him from Wikipedia:
He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964. Crichton was also initiated into the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. He graduated at Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969 and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, in 1969-1970.

Re:Why should we listen to this guy, you ask.

[geoffspear]

That's nice. If I can find someone else who graduated from Harvard Medical School who disagrees with him on any given point, will that make the Universe implode in a logical paradox, since they've come up with some sort of way to make all of their graduates completely infallible?

Re:Why should we listen to this guy, you ask.

[theripper]

No, but it would lend him a bit more credibility then if he were just some fiction writer.

Re:Why should we listen to this guy, you ask.

[Grashnak]

The article summary should have at least mentioned his M.D. Some background info on him from Wikipedia: He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964. Crichton was also initiated into the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. He graduated at Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969 and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, in 1969-1970. And getting an MD in 1969 would qualify him to comment on patents how exactly? Its a legal question, not a medical one. Even if it was a medical question, I'm pretty sure medical school was a little sparse on the gene splicing back in 1969.

Re:Why should we listen to this guy, you ask.

[tfoss]

Of course if you mention that, you shouldn't leave out his belief in psychics, aura-fluffing and spoon-bending.

-Ted

silly arguments from a low-brow sensationalist

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect him to start pushing ID at some point, I mean you or someone you love could equally perish because of a patent on a physical device or copyright on a publication. There are many reasons to oppose biotech and software patents, this isn't actually one of them.

Gene patents, I was using that

[RichMan]

So most gene patents involve finding a gene that is already out there and patenting it.

Um, was that gene not already in existance, and already performing its function.

It is not a new invention. It is not a new application.

In many cases there are thousands, millions or even billions of people/things with that gene in billions of cells eash cell using it every day for the function in which it was patented.

How do these things qualify for patents?

To me it is like patenting gravity. Then applying it to moving water. It is a natural process.

Re:Gene patents, I was using that

[geoffspear]

Plant patents work the same way. If you discover a new plant in an uncultivated state and asexually reproduce it, you can get exclusive rights to it for 20 years. Is this completely ridiculous? Sure. But it's the law in the US.

Gene Patents are bad..

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Open source your gene research, or else someone might steal your dinosaur embryos and ruin Jurassic Park.

Indeed

[physicsboy500]

Man I hate to agree with Mike but...

I just started work as a patent officer and while I don't deal with any genetic-related patents I did wonder why this field was around. Sure it's great that people can protect their ideas but when it comes down to it, a patent is nothing but a legal 20 year monopoly. How would you like to know that someone you loved and cared about died because a very underdeveloped company didn't have the R&D finances to back a mass-market production and the idea the patent was founded around died for 20 years. I do agree that the company should be given some time to themselves to try and take off with the idea, but I think a much shorter time frame would assure that if that company does not have the resources, the true life-saving ideas will still soon hit market.

sadfase

[zyl0x]

Sadly, we're living in the kind of society where celebrities need to tell us these sorts of things are bad.

Re:sadfase

[Overly Critical Guy]

Nobody's stopping you from telling others that you believe these sorts of things are bad.

Re:sadfase

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, we're living in the kind of society where celebrities need to tell us these sorts of things are bad.

...And where unknowns confirm the direness of the situation.

patents, copyright ... currently are corrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

lets be honest, corporations have exerted undue influence to the degree that the patent process has become both ineffective and immoral

lets be even more honest, most people don't care

Repetition

[MrSteveSD]

Sort of off topic I know, but how does Michael Crichton manage to get away with witting the same story again and again? i.e. We develop some cool piece of technology, then it all goes horribly wrong because we don't really know what we're doing.

Westworld - Our theme-park androids go haywire and kill us.
Jurassic Park - Our Genetically engineered Dinosaurs go out of control and kill us.
Runaway - Tom Selleck battles crazy Robot things. Again, our own inventions go bad.
Prey - Our Nanotechnology goes haywire

Feel free to add to the list.

Re:Repetition

[Langalf]

Sort of off topic I know, but how does Michael Crichton manage to get away with witting the same story again and again? i.e. We develop some cool piece of technology, then it all goes horribly wrong because we don't really know what we're doing.

The same could be said (and has been) for science fiction in general. There are only so many unique plot devices in science fiction, and all of them were used by either Jules Verne or H.G. Wells a hundred years ago.

Re:Repetition

[frogstar_robot]

The Terminal Man - Radical application of electronics to neurosurgery causes patient to go on psychotic killing spree.

Gene patents only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Others have written far more extensively about patents in general. Most of what is mentioned applies to all patents. Many, including me, believe that any claimed benefits of patents far exceed the damage that they actually do. There is no capitalism when one can monopolize an idea.

Sounds like a good test case

[jfengel]

The question is, will labs in those other countries do that research? Gene patents are supposed to be an economic incentive to do the work. The US pharmaceutical industry is one of the strongest in the world, and perhaps that can be attributed to its enforcement of the intellectual property laws.

So I'd like to see if other countries do in fact step up to the plate and make themselves rich. If that leads to a revamp of gene patent and other IP laws, so much the better.

Re:Sounds like a good test case

[modemboy]

"The US pharmaceutical industry is one of the strongest in the world, and perhaps that can be attributed to its enforcement of the intellectual property laws."

I would attribute it to the strength of our academic research facilities. I'm no expert but I've seen many times drugs developed most of the way by publicly funded universities and then industry buys the rights for a pittance and does the clinical trials. Also having everyone in this country convinced there are magic pills that will solve all of their problems doesn't hurt profits... (witness their advertising)

Just to be clear on this...

[R2.0]

When Michael Crichton writes a novel on global warming, he's an ignorant sensationalist.

When Michael Crichton writes an op-ed piece on gene patents, he's insightful and informed.

Just checking.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[Luthair]

Just because Hitler had an enormous number of bad ideas doesn't mean that the VW Bug was one of them.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[Garse Janacek]

Yeah, I know, it's crazy. It's almost as if someone's opinions in disparate subjects might be of different legitimacy! This is just like those stupid professors when I was in school... when I wrote a thoroughly researched paper that presented a clear and accurate picture of something, I'd get a good grade -- but then when I wrote a poorly researched paper that ignored major sources and was mostly a personal diatribe, I'd get a bad grade!

Let's have a little consistency, people.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[cephyn]

Uh, yes - Crichton has a medical degree background, so he is to be considered versed in subjects relating to that.

He is not a climatologist.

Why is that hard to understand? You'd trust a mechanic to talk about cars but if he says that vaccines don't work - why should you believe him?

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[jvkjvk]

Well, yes.

It seems that someone's opinions on $foo may be ignorant and sensationalist while their opinions on $bar may be isightful and informed. Imagine that!

Considering that he is also an M.D., one might expect that he has more knowledge of the medical world than he has of climate change. Also, did you read both pieces, or at least parts of the global warming piece? I know that this is slashdot, but could be a slight qualitative difference between:

* Global warming has been manufactured by an environmentalist scientific cabal, thus is wrong

and

* Gene patents have demonstrably hurt average everyday people and are thus wrong.

Just checking.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Just because Hitler ...

Does this demand an invocation of Goodwin's Law? :)

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[defile]

When Michael Crichton writes a novel on global warming, he's an ignorant sensationalist. When Michael Crichton writes an op-ed piece on gene patents, he's insightful and informed.

As insightful and informed as his previous essay ``Why Rape is Wrong''.

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.)

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[mapkinase]

You just added more literacy (in as far as I am concerned) to the expression "taking the words of someone else's mouth".

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[mapkinase]

Nice try. Somebody did not find "Sarcastic" item in the pulldown and hit the random one and some other did not find out "Overstretched" and just moved along.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[mapkinase]

Mod parent up. Good point. Informative, insightful.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[Garse Janacek]

Well, obviously I was being sarcastic, but did you have a reply to my actual point rather than a general implication that people modded the post up by accident?

It's perfectly normal to expect that some things a person says will be generally reasonable and some other things will not be (unless it's possible to have a person who is 100% reasonable about everything, or 100% unreasonable. Maybe the latter could happen, I guess :-P) -- the post above mine was ignoring this obvious part of reality and implying (also sarcastically, I note, but you didn't mind there?) that the only explanation for people liking one thing Crichton says and disliking another is their preconceptions about his conclusions, rather than, say, the actual quality of his reasoning.

Not that I personally find the quality of his gene patents reasoning stellar, exactly, but it does not as blatantly ignore major sources/results as his global warming writing does...

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[mapkinase]

I was referring to the fact that you are overstretching. School level knowledge and opinion on highly controversial largerly non-scientific modern issues are two different ballparks.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the question of his judgment in coming forward on a subject he doesn't know, and putting it out as if he does have a clue. As an expert on security (I read an issue of Cryptogram), I say that you should build a full chain of trust before putting any stock in anything ever written.

Re:Just to be clear on this...

[Zovistograt]

I've been reading "NEXT" lately and I must say it is very insightful. Crichton has the writing style and the matter-of-factness that makes all his books totally believable. What he said on genes is different from global warming because global warming has more people ridiculing the people who actually believe it to be true. Genes are an uncertain future that could prove disastrous and Crichton gets this notion across as well as he did his thoughts in his earlier books.

challanges "science gone wrong"

[peter303]

Science doesn't always go haywire like a Crichton novel. But I think its a useful exercise to image unintended side-effects.

Do something about it!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see that people care about this issue as it is fairly significant. Now let's make sure that our voice is heard by pestering those who represent us in Congress. The bill the article talks about is H.R. 977. It is currently in the hands of the Committee on the Judiciary. Finally, go to Congress.org, find out who your representatives are, and let them know your concerns with regards to this bill.

Repetitiousness

[kahei]

I realize this isn't wholly relevant, but how does Michael Crichton manage to get away with just rehashing the same basic narrative over and over? e.g. We create some cool technological artifact and then disaster ensues because we don't truly understand our own actions.

Westworld -- Theme-park robots freak out and slaughter humans.
Jurassic Park -- Genetically engineered dinosaurs run amuck
Running Man -- Arnie battles mad mechanical men. Again, our own creations turn evil.
This Post -- It starts off amusing but quickly gets old. Or does it?

Feel free to append more stuff to this collection.

Re:Repetitiousness

[rantingkitten]

I'm aware that this is somewhat beside the point, but why hasn't anyone called Michael Chrichton on the fact that his plots always follow the same formula? That is, humans develop an exciting breakthrough technology, and then it goes horrible awry since we lack the wisdom needed to temper ourselves.

Westworld: Animatronic robots blow a fuse and eliminate people
Jurassic Park: Dinosaurs, brought back via genetic engineering, get lose and wreak havoc
Running Man: The Governator engages androids in battle; our own inventions bite us in the ass.
This thread: It began in a farcical way but becomes trite and tired. Don't you agree?

If you have further examples at your disposal, please post in reply.

If you agree with this article

[brewstate]

Those of you who agree with this stance or disagree should contact your local representatives and help stimulate them to back or not back the proposed bill. I haven't read the bill and am basing this statement on the assumption that if this bill helps fight stupidity in the patent system it may get the ball rolling for medical patents and even other patent areas. Also it is a bit frightening to think that someone owns a gene that may be found in my body. Thanks

Re:If you agree with this article

[fancycwabs]

"If you disagree with this article, then you're a child molester."--M.C.

spoiler warning

[s-gen]

Yeah, and the character who listened and learned from the POV character escaped all kinds of near-death nonsense and scored a higher quality GF to boot, whereas the character who did not listen or learn ended up eaten by cannibals pretty much on his first scrape.

Grain of salt...

[jpellino]

Michael is a gifted writer. However this needs to be see in a light that includes :

(1) he has a new book out about it, so this is prolly a junket piece
(2) he wrote "State of Fear" as a novel and further believes it reflects a sensible attitude
(3) he wrote this: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/features/spoonbendi ng.html and believes it.

Interestingly according to WHO, there were 4000+ SARS cases, 252 died, 2000+ recovered, apparently ~1500 fell off the planet.

Re:Grain of salt...

[geekoid]

Any one of those people could make 1 million dollars right now for bending spoons with there minds.

Yes they never step up to collect.

Uri Geller(sp?) said he won't claim it because he hates James Randi. It seemsd to me that is more of a reason to take the money.

I spy with my little eye

[DumbSwede]

If binoculars had never been invented I would say patenting them is fine, but given binoculars it seems absurd to be able to patent everything seen through them for the first time.

If I am afflicted by a patented disease.....

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

FTFA:

why should people or companies own a disease in the first place? They didn't invent it.

I'll sue the bastards who 'own' the disease for the effect it had on civilization.

Um, Prior Art?

[thepropain]

If the patents are on the genes themselves, and a significant enough portion of the population carries the genes (i.e. enough to merit a study), then wouldn't the DNA of everyone who carries said genes qualify as prior art and thus be grounds for patent revocation? Kinda puts an interesting spin on the phrase "Cost of Living"...

Sure.

[SatanicPuppy]

Because the government here in the states has proven again and again that if you want funding to study global warming or evolution all you've got to do is step up with your hand out and they'll give you all the money you'll ever need.

Crichton cherry picked the research for his little global warming stance, intentionally skewing wherever possible. That's pretty much the opposite of "thoughtful research".

It's pretty much obvious to the whole world that things are getting warmer, and the vast majority of scientists from around the world are of the opinion that the change is related to human behavior. Even if you think they're wrong, you have got to take into account the fact that it's you against the whole fricking world, and while the world has been wrong before, that's the exception, not the rule.

Re:Sure.

[mrchaotica]

...while the world has been wrong before, that's the exception, not the rule.

Has it really? When?

Re:Sure.

[gfxguy]

[blockquote]Crichton cherry picked the research for his little global warming stance, intentionally skewing wherever possible.[/blockquote]
And how is that different from all the fear mongering demagogues out there?

Black eye, my ear.

[Valdrax]

The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community.

Yeah, yeah, and it's real black eye on the scientific community that they aren't giving creationists and flat earthers a fair shake either.

Crichton's argument relied entirely on already disputed or disproven data, and furthermore he made wild, libelous accusations about the professional and ethical motives of climate scientists. Why exactly should anyone take seriously the arguments of a man who didn't do his research and calls you a member of a global conspiracy to hide "the truth?"

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[IflyRC]

So, the detractors of global warming are lumped into the same category as creationists eh? I think that hammers home my original point. Thanks!

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[Miseph]

The category of having scientific beliefs in direct contradiction to the mainstream?

Yeah, I'd say that creationists and anti-global warmingists(?) both fall into that same category.

What part of that proved any, let alone "your" point?

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[Valdrax]

What? That they almost rely exclusively on stilted data generated by people with little formal training in the arena they're critiquing?

Seeing as your point seems to be that we should treat all sides even handedly, even when one side repeatedly keeps going back to disproven theories and when that side frequently resorts to experiments with inadequate rigor, I'm glad to help you dig yourself deeper.

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have evidence that the majority viewpoint is wrong, then provide it. Neither you nor crichton provided any such evidence to back up your beliefs. Note that a fictional account of environmental terrorists does not constitute proof.

That lack of scientific evidence does indeed lump you in with the creationists and flat-earthers. I would GLADLY be proven wrong, and I would encourage you, if you do have evidence we have not seen, to provide it, because being wrong about this would be FANTASTIC.

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[ravenshrike]

Actually, creationists by definition DON'T have scientific beliefs. That you lump them in the same category shows you know little about actual science. Anthropological global warming is sorta like string theory. There really isn't any actual evidence that can be directly attributed to either one, at least if you want to be truthful about it.

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crichton's argument relied entirely on already disputed or disproven data, and furthermore he made wild, libelous accusations about the professional and ethical motives of climate scientists."

Hello? Laypeople already can't get a damn weather report that's accurate the day before a freaking snowstorm. Made by a state agency, with federal satellites. With multiple local doppler. It's not exactly difficult to see the argument against why they will predict global warming accurately, much less the impact.

btw, I do believe global warming is happening and it's cause are us humans. I have for 18 years. But my concern isn't about rising temperatures; I could care less that it's hotter. I have greater concern with our food supply and air pollution or the Republicans or Hillary winning the Presidency in '08 than I do the polar ice caps melting, coastal communities being screwed up (hell, we had one entire city fucked up and we barely batted an eye except for the energy, not human, implications). And the political manipulations by everyone, including environmentalists and anti-nation rhetoric (i.e. France).

I'd rather eat yummy plankton than government-subsidized corn syrup fruit drink anyhow.

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[architimmy]

Personally I don't even care if it's a giant conspiracy by a global environmentalist cabal. Doing the things that we need to do to lower emission of greenhouse gases just makes sense in any context. Yes, up front the production of more energy efficient or sustainable forms of energy is more expensive and like all large initiatives requires extensive startup capital. But how can you argue with making transportation, heat and cooling for homes, and any other utility related expenditure less expensive? This seems to me to be once again another example of all industries being beholden to the interests of a single industry and in a global economy that is simpleminded and dangerous. Additional costs absolutely would slow economic growth but our own government has been depressing and slowing economic growth for years through the manipulation of a central interest rate. This is actually a federal policy. Why not slow the economy by turning that economic energy in to positive future investment rather than artificially inflating costs through raising interest rates?

Of course there's also this, what if there IS global warming. Do you want to err on the side of doing nothing and essentially destroy civilization as we know it? You think 9-11 was bad? Wait until the Manhattan is entirely under water. Who's going to be history's villain then?

We really need to stop expecting someone else to be responsible for the world and start to take on some responsibility ourselves, as individuals, corporations, and as countries. Whether global warming is really happening, or just a natural fluxuation in the earth's climate, there are simply no reasons not to pursue more efficient and sustainable sources of energy today. At least while we still have the economic and industrial capability to do so.

I'm no expert nor economist in any regard so please feel free to point out the fallacies in my post.

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[gfxguy]

anti-global warmingist?

That's a good one!

Sadly though, not many people, Crichton included, deny the existence of Global Warming, so try again.

Re:Black eye, my ear.

[Miseph]

Actually, creationists by definition DON'T have scientific beliefs. Don't tell that to a creationist. The fact that they have no LEGITIMATE scientific case doesn't mean that they don't have scientific beliefs, it just means that they have very poor ones. I know plenty of actual science, by the way, I just apply the definition the same way I apply the definitions of "poetry", "music", "gender", "intelligence", etc. because I would rather include some things that might not really belong than exclude things which really do but don't meet the criteria based on a definition from our limited perspective and experience.

I admit that I've not been following string theory too closely, has it recently fallen out of favor? Is there some new threshold for acceptable evidence that states we cannot use indirect evidence? Have atoms been discredited because we only have circumstantial evidence that they exist? I don't disagree that global warming has slim to no direct evidence, but I very strongly disagree that this is an important thing to mention. All it means is that we first have to establish certain facts: for example that Earth's temperature is rising (it is, nobody denies this), that this rise clearly coincides with specific human activity (temperatures have gone up at highly accelerated pace since the start of the industrial revolution, evidence gathered from ice cores and glaciers indicates that the current pace is far above any other in the thousands of years of data contained in those ice cores), that no other apparent cause can be given (the Sun hasn't gotten any hotter, aliens don't appear to be blasting us with heat rays, etc.), and that it makes sense to the data and knowledge we already have to come to such a conclusion (greenhouse gases WOULD be expected to increase the temperature, depletion of the ozone layer WOULD be expected to increase solar radiation allowed into our atmosphere, etc.), and suddenly we have a pretty compelling case based on circumstantial evidence.

If we're willing to accept circumstantial evidence as sufficient to get a murder conviction and implement capital punishment, it boggles me why such is not good enough to convince us of anthropological global warming.

Scientific Inquisistion

[huckamania]

Sorry Mike, but since you challenged the Global Warming Apocalypse you will have to be strung up on the rack and anything you say will be considered heresy. After all, how can 90% of climatologists ever be wrong about anything?

/. Help Needed...

[LeDopore]

At the danger of being modded O/T, I'm going to post some of the research I did regarding medical patents in general.

I'm against patents for medical technology, because the incentives to the drug companies barely match the desires of the patients. As I recently showed in my blog, only 14% of drug revenue goes towards R & D, half of this 14% is wasted by looking for new drugs which don't treat diseases better than old ones (but are patentable, hence profitable), and the remaining 7% funds research skewed towards untested, patentable treatments even if well-known drugs might do as good or better a job. We've set up incentives for drug companies to find patentable tech they can then market to us. I think we need an entirely new incentive system, and I think we can do it and still have a free-market-friendly environment for research companies.

In this blog post, I outline a way for drug companies to get rewarded based on how much good their research does for humanity, using an Mprise-like system. Companies would get rewards proportional to how much better their treatment was shown to be over the current best treatment.

I have some ideas on how to implement this system so that everybody wins (yes - everybody - don't forget the parable of the broken window), but I would love some input from /.ers to help refine the details. You're always good at spotting holes in arguments, and I'd love to find them to see if they can be plugged.

Thanks!

He already wrote a warning years ago.

[Valdrax]

Wish he had written this months ago... ...and thereby saved me the tedium of having to read Next.

Personally, reading Sphere saved me the tedium of having to read Next (and pretty much all the other books he's written since the mid-90s).

Doesn't have to be creative

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

If you experiment with an industrial process for months or years, spending money exploring blind alleys to find the one right combination of pressures and temperatures reaction times, you've done nothing "creative" but it's an investment that patents are meant to protect. Your work is a contribution to the "useful arts".

Should discovery be treated the same way? The answer came out "yes" in the case of patents for plants, so there is at least precedent.

The case against is that the government shouldn't grant monopolies unless there's proof of a market failure happening if they don't. Since people were busy discovering genes even without patent protection, well, ...

Re:Doesn't have to be creative

[tygerstripes]

Reading your comment, I feel a bit guilty for being modded up Ins/Int, when it turned out I was being Redundant in the first place. You're dead right - patents are for the protection of innovation to the end that innovation is encouraged. This may appear to be what's happening with gene patenting, but in the long run Crichton is right - patenting (for too long) will stifle progress.

Imagine if the fundamentalist Right patented AIDS

[Rexifer]

... in the 80's when it was viewed as a sinner's disease, and prevented any research from happening and blocked any possible treatment that infringed on "their" patent. Patents used for political purposes scare the piss out of me, even as a defensive countermeasure against lawsuits (the corporate equivalent of Mutually-Assured Destruction: If you sue me for A, I'll sue you for B, C, and D...)

Genetic inventions can be patented.

[Valdrax]

You need to be more familiar with Supreme Court rulings:
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 1980

Crichton: a very skilled and entertaining hack

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a big fan of Crichton's books, until I realized they were all essentially different flavored rewrites of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein".

About the only work of his I can think of which wasn't is "Eaters of the Dead"... and it's because that was a rewrite of "Beowulf". It's still a highly recommended book, however. It's the story "The 13th Warrior" is based on, btw.

What about raping children?

[seebs]

I was totally expecting to find out that Michael Crichton had asserted that gene patents have tiny penises and rape children.

patents spur invention

[doug141]

Patents give a financial incentive for inventors to invent and disclose their new idea to the rest of us. The inventors are given the temporary ability to manufacture the product themselves or license to someone who will. Take away patents and you empower a manufacuring juggernaught to immediately produce any products introduced by others. Got an idea for a better snow shovel design, intermittant wipers, a better way to microwave bacon? Patent it and tell us, and rest assured ACME, Ford or Ronco won't rip you off and get away with it.

Re:patents spur invention

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they WILL get away with just that. Or do you have the 100s 1000$ to actually sustain a lawsuit against a big company?

OTOH, if there were no patents, people would not get rich with cool ideas of castles in the sky, but by actually *implementing* those ideas and giving you something for your buck. Oh, and there'd be no more patent trolls to boot.

But where's the money?

[giminy]

So let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Where is the money in genetic research if we stop patenting genes? Genetic research is *expensive*. My girlfriend is a biotechnology student (yeah yeah). She spent about four years doing work with Arabadopsis plants, using a clone that has already been fully sequenced. It took her ~2 years of more or less full-time work to find the genes that control guard cell features -- not any particular feature, mind you, just enough that she could shoot a clone with a gene gun and have some pigment stick to where the gene gun discharge hit.

Now that she has the information, she'd like to work to increase guard cell size. It will probably take 10-20 man-years of research to achieve. Let's assume that each person earns $200k (inc. benefits...this is probably what your average 'real' genetic researcher costs). That's $2M to $4M of labor to create a line of Arabadopsis that has larger guard cells (which in turn allow it to digest more Co2). Now let's assume that genetic patents are thrown out. The first person that buys one of these plants can clone it and sell that clone due to the change in law. Total net gain from the lab is a negative two million dollars at least. If the lab is funded through tax dollars, great...except in the United States, we like to privatize everything (big government == bad).

Genetic research is very hit-or-miss. Even moreso than other areas of scientific research, experiments fail, they fail, and then they fail again. We know what we want to achieve, but we have no idea what portion of the genetic sequence requires modifying to bring that feature out. It really is a lot of luck to succeed. The number of salaries that need to be covered to decode genetic information is enormous. If companies or even private individuals can no longer hold patents on all the work, they're essentially spending hundreds of man-years of labor for information that anybody can (and will) repeat via simple and cheap cloning -- the worker won't see a dime.

If we're going to say that these patents are bad, I think we need to devise a better way to keep the research lucrative. Short of funding all genetic research via the government, there isn't much of a way to cover all the expenses associated with failed experiments (which account for a huge amount of gene experiments)...unless someone can think of a better way.

Re:But where's the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 +/- years of research to shoot a clone with a gene gun when all she had to do was send her twin sister to my apartment???

Re:But where's the money?

[frogstar_robot]

Patents as they are currently used are deadly. Literally.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/010 4.thompson.html

The patent office has not, however, tackled the more important issue of how companies use patents. Patenting a gene and releasing it into the public domain, as the National Institute of Health now usually does, harms no one. Some private companies, Incyte Genomics for example, have also earned reputations for allowing other companies to use their patents widely and cheaply, in no small part because money can often be made just as easily with lots of companies paying small fees to use a patent, instead of a few companies paying astronomical ones. But not everybody's sharing. Myriad Genetics, for example, used its patent over a gene that served as an indicator of breast cancer to stop research on it at the University of Pennsylvania. Two years ago, in another well-known case, the Miami Children's Hospital received a patent on a gene for the rare Canavan disease that it had identified in one of its patients, Jonathan Greenberg. Without informing Greenberg, the hospital set out to block free Canavan tests offered elsewhere.

Seems to me that these patents as currently employed have cost lives and caused needless pain and suffering. Furthermore, a sick child and his family were exploited by a hospital; this sort of reprehensible behavior seems to be common in patented genetic research.

This bit doesn't seem very defensible either:

"Major hepatitis C and HIV genes and various diabetes genes are all owned," Crichton, an M.D., tells us. "Researchers working on those diseases must worry about getting permission and paying high fees." During the SARS epidemic, he says, some researchers hesitated to study the virus because three groups claimed to own its genome. "It's OK to own a treatment or test for a disease, but no one should own a disease," he insists.

The problem here...and I checked...is that isolated genetic sequences can be patented as though they were just another unique chemical substance. Isolated or not, these sequences have existed for millions or even billions of years. These are facts not inventions. I believe my original thesis still has overwhelming merit: It is appropriate to patent particular and defined applications of genetic fact. It is no way appropriate to patent the sequences themselves. It is absolutely not appropriate to patent alternative uses of given sequences. You may as well patent Ohm's law.

If the scope of these patents and the conditions under which many of them are obtained is reformed then I might agree with you. As it stands, they are being employed to benefit the very few at the expense of multitudes. What's more, it seems that others have the funding and wherewithal to study these things according to the best scientific traditions if the lawyers would just get out of the way. It doesn't appear to me that these patents are truly protecting innovation and funding waves of future innovation. They are more like software patents. They are the legal equivalent of jackal vomit. Jackals vomit on what they can't eat so that others won't eat it either.

Re:But where's the money?

[giminy]

Myriad Genetics, for example, used its patent over a gene that served as an indicator of breast cancer to stop research on it at the University of Pennsylvania.

This one seems a bit far-fetched. Academic research is explicitly allowed on patented genes. I'm allowed to tinker with the patented item in my home, so long as I don't aim to sell what I do, or otherwise compete with the patent-holder. Of course, if I do find some breakthrough, I can always contact the company (or other companies that licensed their patent) and work something out.

The thing to keep in mind is that patents only last 20 years (medicine patents only last 7). A rational company is not going to hold out for an astronomical amount of money to test for this gene or that just because it owns the patent. It may ask for an irrational amount if it's going broke and is hoping for a savior. Unfortunately Myriad has the public perception of being a bit irrational with its BRCA2 test (a gene that my girlfriend probably has; at least she's fortunate enough that she can extract her own DNA and get it sequenced, then do a little lithography to find out if she really does).

I'm going to go and defend Myriad a bit, though, and use numbers to do so. Not because I like them (I don't...it would be nice if my girlfriend could get a BRCA2 test done without fear of being caught). Still, I'm going to defend them, and in a far more convincing way.

Take a look at their 2006 financial report. Ignore the part about how much revenue they generated, because that's just shareholder BS. The point is this: they've been operating at a NET LOSS since 2002. It's right there in the brochure that they wrote. Page 18. Yep, $100 million in revenue. Oops, $159 million in research and marketing expenses. Yes, clearly they are a big greedy corporation that are charging too much for my girlfriend to get her BRCA2 test...they're not even turning a profit! If we got rid of patents, you could change their revenue to $0 and see that they would have lost ~$150 million last year. They'd have gone belly-up in 2002 and never would have even discovered BRCA2.

The skinny is, they spend WAY MORE doing research than they earn from patents (or anything else). The only reason they stay afloat is that they keep dumping stock on the public, and people keep buying it (page 23, "Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable investment securities increased $113.9 million or 100% from $113.8 million at June 30, 2005 to $227.7 million at June 30, 2006. This increase is primarily attributable to the public offering of $139.7 million (net proceeds) of our common stock in November 2005.")

Myriad's shareholders are kind of the unsung heroes of people at high risk of breast cancer -- maybe we can't have free BRCA2 tests tomorrow, but in a few years when the patents expire, even men will afford to get tested for it.

Not to be dripping with sarcasm, but again, clearly they're a big, greedy, corporation.

"Major hepatitis C and HIV genes and various diabetes genes are all owned," Crichton, an M.D., tells us. "Researchers working on those diseases must worry about getting permission and paying high fees." During the SARS epidemic, he says, some researchers hesitated to study the virus because three groups claimed to own its genome. "It's OK to own a treatment or test for a disease, but no one should own a disease," he insists.

Look at what Crichton doesn't tell us. He uses the dreaded, "Some researchers hesitated," but won't say who, won't quote them, and won't say how much the holding companies wanted. Or who owns the diseases (let alone how much it cost those companies to do the sequencing on the diseases). He fails to back up his article with anything like numbers. Has he tried calling the companies? Have you? If so, what do they charge? I think if we did more research like Myriad's financials, we'd find that most genetics/pharma are in the same boat.

Gen

Climate change debate

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Scientists should always question

Have you ever seen a paper come back with comments from the referees?

>The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community

Notice how the conclusions of climatologists are data-driven? Under a much more environmentalist US administration, they were still coming up with "we don't know yet but we know this is possible". With active hostility from funding sources, but with more field data, the state of the field now lets them say "very likely" there's human-caused climate change.

We keep hearing that there's some kind of groupthink among climatologists. It would be a logical fallacy to point out that we keep hearing it because self-interested people are using endless repetition as a propaganda technique: it might still be true. But a single logical thought demolishes the idea:

What kind of "groupthink" is it that tells you they don't know whether it will be 1.4 or 5.8 degrees C of increase, tells you the probability that they're wrong about human causation, and argues in public about why Greenland is melting faster than they had predicted?

Re:Climate change debate

[rbanffy]

What kind of "groupthink" is it that tells you they don't know whether it will be 1.4 or 5.8 degrees C of increase, tells you the probability that they're wrong about human causation, and argues in public about why Greenland is melting faster than they had predicted?

To think about global warming as just that (an increase of temperature) is incredibly naïve.

What happens is that more energy is retained in the atmosphere and, like a glass of boiling water, it will get more and more chaotic as you increase the energy in the system.

Hotter summers, with more storms and rain. More evaporation could mean more deserts in one place and floods in others. Colder, drier, winters are also part of the package. More desertification and radical change in several ecosystems. While the average raises by a couple degrees, the maximum and minimum temperatures raise and drop by several.

It's really too chaotic to predict accurately but, nevertheless, they represent very unwelcome changes.

Re:Climate change debate

[Chris Burke]

What kind of "groupthink" is it that tells you they don't know whether it will be 1.4 or 5.8 degrees C of increase, tells you the probability that they're wrong about human causation, and argues in public about why Greenland is melting faster than they had predicted?

Absofuckinlutely. People who think that climatologists' have one unique opinion, that there is no dissent, that there is no discussion, that they have a pre-conceived idea of what reality is and do not debate it amongst themselves based on their research and data, simply have no clue. The debate is going on, the science is going on.

And the fact is that in science there are always people trying to disprove whatever is the commonly held theory. Turning the state of scientific knowledge on its ear is a way to get yourself in the history books. If you can back it up. The idea that no one would dare do science that might lead to questioning of the "groupthink" is insane; in fact even people who believe in their theories do experiments to try to disprove them, as this is what scientific rigor demands. Yet the scientific community continues to gather evidence that climate change is happening and that it's happening because of the industrial revolution. Is the fact that nobody has come out with rigorous science that shows this not to be true a sign of the secret cabal stifling research? Or is it a sign that maybe the climate change science was actually of a much higher quality than skeptics would allow, which is why it is difficult to tear down?

Quality is Not the Same

[WebHostingGuy]

Brand name drugs don't advertise after a drug goes off patent and all major costs have already been recouped. The only expense left is manufacturing.

If you think there has not been a problem about generic quality control check out this statement from the Commissioner of Food and Drugs a few years back:

"Finally, FDA has also uncovered evidence that some generic drug firms have
violated the good manufacturing practice regulations that govern overall
production procedures and techniques that help guarantee the safety and
effectiveness of drug products."

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CN00080b.ht ml

Re:Quality is Not the Same

[WebHostingGuy]

And if you think that was too old, here are some recent problems:

Oct, 2004: (problems when customers switched to generics because of quality control)
http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/archives/editorial/ genric_drug_problem_raises_questions_on_quality.as p

Jan, 2000 (generic company lost license because of quality problems, it served 10% of market in GB)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=1128727

Dec, 1997 (generic company hit with record fine for among other things falsifying records to cover up deviations from approved manufacturing processes)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n7_ v31/ai_20097793

Re:Quality is Not the Same

[tfried]

> Brand name drugs don't advertise after a drug goes off patent and all major costs have already been recouped.

So you've never seen an ad for Aspirin? Where I live, there's plenty.

> If you think there has not been a problem about generic quality control check out this statement from the Commissioner of Food and Drugs a few years back:

So, apparently, there is some external control outside of patents. And now, could you please restate, what additional incentive patents give to producers to ensure quality control? I seem to have missed that point.

Re:Quality is Not the Same

[WebHostingGuy]

The point was about brand names, loyalty and quality control among generics. It really does not have anything to do with the initial patent, only dealing with issues after patent expiration.

And no, never seen an Aspirin commercial. I got Tivo. :)

Seriously, drug companies don't promote patented doctor prescribed drugs (not over the counter stuff) beyond patent expiration. Generally they pull most marketing efforts a year "before" patent expiration.

Money making scheme

[Glacial Wanderer]

I think the music industry and their lawyers should invest in one of these gene patents. The average human has 100 trillion cells. Let assume there lawyers sue for only $1000 per use of their patented gene. Then every human using this gene would owe them $100,000,000,000,000,000. It's much more profitable that this whole music thing.

Re:Money making scheme

[mindwar23]

But by the same token, if someone's intellectual property causes illness (i.e. causing someone's liver to fail, as in the case of Hep C) can I not sue the life out the company that owns that property? I'm sure that people would cease their infringement as soon as the copyright owner provides a free search-and-remove tool.

Distorted truth

[wiredlogic]

'When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it -- because of patent concerns'

This is a distortion of the truth. Patents do not impede pure medical research. They only impede researchers who want to make money off of their findings and are unwilling to share with the efforts of those who preceded them. All scholarly activity is exempted from patent infringement. This isn't to say that medical patents, especially gene patents, involve some deep ethical problems but they don't prohibit related research.

I agree but...

[GigG]

While I agree with him I have to, on philosophical grounds say, "Who cares what he says, he's a fiction author damn-it." I wish that actors and other such celebrities would just stay out of the conversation and not use their celebrity to sway those that for some reason think because they have a talent for acting or writing they "know stuff."

Re:I agree but...

[geekoid]

I just want them to study the subject to some degree.

Re:I agree but...

[GigG]

There's the problem. In most cases they think they have studied the problem. Lobbyists for a given cause go to them with the literature and they then parrot it to their fans.

Re:I agree but...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, Michael Crichton has an MD. I wouldn't call him an expert specifically on genetics, but he is fairly well-versed in the medical field.

That said, he is talking about a complex issue that addresses not only medicine, but economic theory, as well. It's like asking whether open source software is better than closed. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Many experts have differing views on each.

Re:Imagine if the fundamentalist Right patented AI

[toddhisattva]

Getting silly here ---

Those copying the AIDS virus will be arrested for patent infringement and put in jail. All of 'em. Let G=d sort 'em out.

So the AIDS epidemic is halted in its tracks.

Except among the patent violators. Who will all be in jail giving the patented disease to each other.

I think I'll shop this story to Sci-Fi channel, if that's okay with you. They can run it after wrestling.

well...

[circletimessquare]

people usually aren't so altruistic. research for the sake of research doesn't pay the bills. additionally, financial incentives can amp up the rate of innovation

so society should have some sort of ip law. the problem is, the current regime of ip law, at least in the us, is taken to a ridiculous absurdity, such that it defeats the initial goal of fostering innovation in the first place, and begins to dampen it

witness:

Biology Goes Open Source

Breaking news....

[hairykrishna]

Michael Crichton in 'not always wrong' shocker...

Genes for cancer...

[goober1473]

If there is a gene which is a marker/pre-cursor to cancer or other illness and this is patented, does the patent owner have all rights, including distribution? If so does the patent logic lead to a case against the patent owner when their gene starts killing?

Re:Genes for cancer...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

You don't just patent a gene. You patent a particular application. In particular, you're only in legal trouble if your gene was patented as an invention for killing people.

From Congressman Becerra's website

[timonbraun]

12/14/2005 REP. BECERRA'S RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE GALAXY PASSES UNANIMOUSLY IN THE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C. - H.Res.574, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the Los Angeles Galaxy on their victory in the 2005...

Re:But where's the money?dailyrotten.com/

[frogstar_robot]

I can see patenting particular applications of genetic research same as any other science but genes are facts damn it. What you are defending is no different than patenting the location of stars or subatomic particles. It is even more analogous to patenting traditional herbal remedies that have been used for thousands of years. Your incentivising patents are already impeding medical research that could save lives.

Why should genetic research have access to a type of patent that no other field of endeavor has? Until the gene patent, bare facts about nature could not be patented only applications of those facts. And that is a good thing too. I doubt science would have moved beyond 17th century levels if this sort of debilitating absurdity was permitted in other fields of research.

i like it, great idea ;-)

[circletimessquare]

the problem with most ip law is it goes unmentioned, unpublished. so a few absurd court cases wouldn't get any actual legal wins, but it would get a lot of free pr. and the first step in fighting injustice is getting out the word, publicizing that a crime is occurring

so good idea dude! fight absurdity with absurdity ;-)

what we need is a flying spaghetti monster for ip law ;-P

Oh yeah and....

[frogstar_robot]

The Andromeda Strain - The results of space exploration go amuck and could kill us all.

screw "emotional appeal" on /.

[mapkinase]

'You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's only too real.'

'You, or someone you love, may die because of a drug patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's only too real.'

Boycott Crichton!

[aJester]

I had read EACH and EVERY book that Michael Crichton wrote .. until "State of Fear".

And that will be the last book written by Micheal Crichton that I every spend money on.
I have decided to boycott Crichton for ever.
I don't want a dime of my money going to him ... ever.
For crying out loud, the petroleum industry BOUGHT him a "journalistic award" for writing a fiction - "State of Fear".

ahref=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/0 9prize.html?ex=1297141200&en=0d93dce0782d23dd&ei=5 090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssrel=url2html-24205h ttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09prize. html?ex=1297141200&en=0d93dce0782d23dd&ei=5090&par tner=rssuserland&emc=rss />
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fearre l=url2html-24205http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State _of_Fear />
Jester

Bingo, perhaps RAND is the solution?

[alexhmit01]

Without patents, then the "little guy" develops an idea, attempts to bring it to market, and big TNF (trans-national firms) copy the idea, move production costs around, avoid R&D, and come to market 60% below and put the little guy out of business.

With patents, the little guy develops an idea, attempts to bring it to market, gets undercut and destroyed by TNF, then sues and collects money from TNF.

However, the downside to patents is that most new "innovations" stand on the shoulders of giants, and while I can patent my improvement, I need the patents held by incumbent players. Sure I can build a better mouse trap, but if I can't build it without using patents from the older mouse trap, that the status quo players get to decide if I can play.

The biggest issue is that cartelization effect of cross-licensing. Intel and AMD had cross-licensed their innovations, which let them compete on R&D, process, and marketing, not lawyering... the sounds pro-competitive, but it's not. Nobody else could attempt to compete in the market (look at all the failed attempts) because even with patents on their innovations, Intel & AMD held patents that they needed to use, which essentially granted AMD & Intel a cartel to keep new players out (although you could eventually cash in when AMD or Intel stepped on your patent in their fight with each other... that doesn't help push innovation, just redirect money).

Right, we're in agreement. What if cross-licensing deals were illegal. I mean, what if ALL non-RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing deals were illegal. In other-words, 3 incumbent firms can't create a cartel by cross-licensing, each patent would have to be negotiated, find, but once it is licensed, it must be available to EVERYONE at that price. It must be reasonable, meaning you can either use the patent for the monopoly, or license under reasonable terms.

This prevents AMD and Intel from lining up 50 patents each, licensing them to each other for $10/chip, and walking away paying zero, and continuing. It needs to be done in such a way that AMD and Intel fight for new patents to collect money from each other. Sure, a player with fewer patents pays more than they collect, but at least it would stop the current stupidity... where patents block new entrants, and all new entrants can do is collect money, not actually enter.

Re:Bingo, perhaps RAND is the solution?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Clever. I think you're on the right track here. This solution gets back to the intent and purpose of patents while improving competition and capitalistic ideals while thwarting cartels.

What is to stop Intel and AMD from deciding to license each of those 50 patents to each other and under RAND terms. Is it the dollar amount (the R)? How could you define reasonable?

Re:Bingo, perhaps RAND is the solution?

[alexhmit01]

Clever. I think you're on the right track here. This solution gets back to the intent and purpose of patents while improving competition and capitalistic ideals while thwarting cartels.

Bingo. I think that Patents do serve to advance the useful arts and sciences. I think that especially in the case of Pharma, patents encourage extensive R&D spending and are critical. I will un-popularly suggest that even in Internet-land, some of the patents served to encourage investment in building the commercial Internet.

My concern is that once an industy gets established, cross-licensing keeps new comers out and makes it an old boys network, which is NOT the purpose of patents. Perhaps Amazon.com should be rewarded for their one-click solution, and a RAND policy would have allowed that... If they wanted to license the patent to Apple, they should have had to make it available to ALL comers at the same rate. Perhaps they could have extracted 1%-2% of all Internet sales for their patent, but their "innovation" of one-click shopping would have then benefited all of society... instead we have to wait 13 more years or whatever to benefit from this useful art...

What is to stop Intel and AMD from deciding to license each of those 50 patents to each other and under RAND terms. Is it the dollar amount (the R)? How could you define reasonable?

Absolutely nothing. The reality is that many large industries have many patents involved, the days of one-single patent for something basic like the light-bulb are over. You still get them in screwball areas (watch what gets hocked on infomercials), but semi-conductors, etc., will have many minor patents involved.

My suggestion would be that patent-holders can do one of the following:
A) refuse to license to anybody and therefore USE the monopoly
B) sell the patent, or enter an exclusive licensing arrangement (basically, the only difference is whether the original holder or new holder has the right to sue others for damages)
C) license the patent, but the TERMS of any agreement MUST be disclosed via the PTO within 90 days and must be made available to any new comer

Basically, I would eliminate the cartelization of industries with cross licensing. When Intel develops a new patent, they can horde it, and make AMD work around, or they can license it to AMD. However, ONCE Intel licenses it to AMD, then Motorola, IBM, and anyone else can license it under the same terms.

This won't be an overnight fix, but in time, the days of establishing oligopolies where a few players hold key patents and keep everyone else out will come to an end... even if it is only for new players.

Note: I wouldn't suggest that nobody else can negotiate. Let's say AMD agrees to pay a one-time fee of $5m to license the patent, and then FPGA player comes and offers $5/chip and Intel allows it... I would suggest that BOTH must be published, and a third party, JoeChips, has the right to license the patent for $5m (AMD terms), $5/chip (FPGA terms), or attempt to negotiate with Intel.

I wouldn't eliminate the premiums available to patent holders, just stop them from picking and choosing their competition.

Re:Bingo, perhaps RAND is the solution?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Very well done. Seriously, you should consider writing a paper or article or attempting some draft legislation.

Crichton or whoever

[ashtophoenix]

I don't care who wrote this article. Gene patents are a horrendous idea. If you take them away, not only will research thrive but it will be faster than before, because sharing of information will lead those who have found something, to go on to find something newer. Even if you take the practical concerns which many will have (for example, paying the hard work of the researchers who actually found this gene) away. It is 'a' gene. Not my gene or your gene. The info belongs to humanity and not to a person. Even the idea of owning it brings a bitter taste to the mouth.

Ignoring all the hoopla...

[BlazeMiskulin]

How many of you actually read the article?

The key phrase in the article is this:

"You can't patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn't be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned."

The problem Crichton is pointing to isn't a flaw in the process of patents as a concept, but in the application of the concept to a specific situation: "laying claim" to something that exists naturally, and is already "owned" by many (and in some cases, all) people on the Earth.

It's utterly reasonable (and desirable) to patent a test for Disease X. It's reasonable and desirable to patent a drug or procedure for curing Disease X. It's both detrimental and dangerous to allow someone to patent the gene that causes Disease X and then state that nobody else can do any research on this gene. That discourages innovation and scientific advancement.

Let's take it out of the biological realm for a moment and apply the same reasoning to another industry. It's like someone patenting iron--and preventing manufacturers from creating anything that uses iron. Or someone patenting "zero"--and preventing coders from writing anything that uses a "zero".

The naturally-occuring human genome should be owned by no one. No part of it should be patentable. Inventions based on that genome? Yes. Non-naturally-occuring modifications to that genome? Yes. Processes for replicating naturally-occuring modifications? Yes. But not the genome itself. Withholding access to the pimary data--data readily available everywhere in the world for free--directly and disasterously hampers both innovation and the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Name brand prices go up...

[alexhmit01]

When a drug goes off patent, the name brand drug price INCREASES, not decreases. Why? Well, the price sensitive part of the market will go with generics, and the wealthy consumers that will pay full price for the better drug will often do so with a price increase.

Patented drug: priced in negotiation with HMOs and others to fit entire market
Post-patented drug: priced based upon the small sliver of the market that isn't price sensitive...

Different demand curve, different pricing. Why don't they drop prices to generic prices? Because it is FAR more profitable to sell the drug at a HUGE premium to a small section of the market, than at low profits everywhere. The "Big Pharma" industry is based upon HUGE R&D, then HUGE margins on drugs. They are NOT super-effecieint producers. The generics are manufacturing companies that focus on low costs, but the drugs aren't as effective (don't need to be, just 80% similar or something stupid). Also, often the company that made the branded version will ALSO create a generic version. If you're set up to service 100% of the market, and the market only increases 50% when you go off patent and prices plumet, then you can serve your 10% premium market, plus a third of the generic market WITHOUT changing production at all, so you stamps some group of them differently.

Unfortunately, except for targeted drugs, where the brand making company can supply the entire generic market as well, the generic market is filled with crappy knock offs.

You can always ask your Dr. to write "do not substitute" on the prescription. If you have a drug plan, you'll just pay the higher co-pay. If you don't have a drug plan, you'll just pay more, and get medicine that works mostly. Generics open the drugs up to the masses, which is good, but don't prevent wealthy people from getting better medicine that works correctly if willing to pay the premium.

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[bill_mcgonigle]

The generics are manufacturing companies that focus on low costs, but the drugs aren't as effective (don't need to be, just 80% similar or something stupid). Unfortunately, except for targeted drugs, where the brand making company can supply the entire generic market as well, the generic market is filled with crappy knock offs...Generics open the drugs up to the masses, which is good, but don't prevent wealthy people from getting better medicine that works correctly if willing to pay the premium.

I've never heard this before - do you happen to know of any studies about this? The FDA should be shutting down factories if this is true. You're not referring to imported internet-sold drugs, right?

Also, often the company that made the branded version will ALSO create a generic version. If you're set up to service 100% of the market, and the market only increases 50% when you go off patent and prices plumet, then you can serve your 10% premium market, plus a third of the generic market WITHOUT changing production at all, so you stamps some group of them differently.

That's smart.

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[alexhmit01]

My original:

The generics are manufacturing companies that focus on low costs, but the drugs aren't as effective (don't need to be, just 80% similar or something stupid). Unfortunately, except for targeted drugs, where the brand making company can supply the entire generic market as well, the generic market is filled with crappy knock offs...Generics open the drugs up to the masses, which is good, but don't prevent wealthy people from getting better medicine that works correctly if willing to pay the premium.

I've never heard this before - do you happen to know of any studies about this? The FDA should be shutting down factories if this is true. You're not referring to imported internet-sold drugs, right?

I'm overstating it. Sometimes the generic works fine, sometimes it doesn't. A Z-pack (prescription 3-day antibiotic) always wiped out my wife's sinus infections... The generic one she got when pregnant... didn't do anything. It could be the pregnancy, but I've had bad luck with many generics... One of the advantages of being the son of a Doctor, you know when a generic is just as good and when it's crap.

Check this article out on perscription drugs, Greater Access to Generic Drugs, scroll down to the bottom: FDA Requirements for Generic Drugs, and ask yourself which of those rules are easy to game.

Generics get approval within 20 months... they have to show bio-equivalence in a lab setting, not the real world. They SHOULD be the same, but they aren't. The big pharma companies research delivery methods to get EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE percentage of efficacy, because 1% - 2% could be the difference between becoming the new gold standard or being an also ran. For example, if I have a drug that helps in some aspect of surgery, if the existing, long generic, etc., solution is 97% effective and costs $8/dose, and I want to become the new hot drug and charge $400/dose, I need to be 98.5%, well, focusing on every half percent is important.

Once my new wonder drug owns the market, the generic players need to demonstrate (not prove) bio-equivalency. Talk to a Doctor off the record, they'll tell you that plenty of the generics don't work well. On the record, they say it's the same, but plenty of times things that routinely worked when the drug was under patent protection just don't work as well once the generics hit the market. The abbreviated approval process, requiring only proof in a lab, and the fact that the "active" ingredients are the same but the non-active ingredients can differ... well, if the inactive ones affect absorption rate, etc., or how they handle people with unusual chemistry (and if you add up each unusual case that covers 2.5% of the population, you probably get 20% of people that have something abnormal), etc., and you have inferior drugs.

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[multiplexo]

Your post is utter shit. Really, it is. You write:

I'm overstating it. Sometimes the generic works fine, sometimes it doesn't. A Z-pack (prescription 3-day antibiotic) always wiped out my wife's sinus infections... The generic one she got when pregnant... didn't do anything. It could be the pregnancy, but I've had bad luck with many generics... One of the advantages of being the son of a Doctor, you know when a generic is just as good and when it's crap.

So basically we have a bunch of anecdotal evidence from you that generics don't work. A sort of anti-placebo affect. Unfortunately your experiences mean nothing. Really, they don't. Can you show me double-blind tests of generics v. brand names that prove that generics aren't as good as brand name drugs? No, you can't, because they don't exist, if a generic doesn't match the brand it doesn't get approved. If you had bothered to read the webpage you cite, you would have noticed this FDA requirement "Generic drug manufacturers must show that a generic drug is bioequivalent to the brand-name drug, which means the generic version delivers the same amount of active ingredients into a patient's bloodstream in the same amount of time as the brand-name drug."

There are no special carve-outs or gimmes in the FDA's regulations for manufacturers of generic drugs, nothing in . So why do doctors recommend brand name drugs? Well let's see, a lot of doctors are really fucking ignorant and a lot of doctors are being paid off by the drug industry with special junkets, trips, gifts, et al. If some guy comes down to your dad's office and hands him 5,000 samples of drug X and pays for a round of golf and a nice lunch at a local club I'm willing to bet that your dad is going to hand out those samples and I'm willing to bet that he writes more scripts for drug X. This problem has gotten so bad that major hospitals are banning drug salesmen from meeting with individual staff members and have banned free samples.

Drug companies have a huge incentive to confuse this issue as much as possible to preserve their profits just as they have an incentive to get people to use . Or in pushing drugs that are no more effective than existing drugs, such as the COX-2 inhibitors, and which have deadly side effects that far outweigh their benefits, or come up with minor reformulations of existing drugs which are patentable but which are no more effective than the existing drug or a generic version (Serafem anyone).

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[alexhmit01]

With all due respect, that was rude. Some of the generics are fine, others are... problematic. I don't want to go into specifics, I mentioned one anecdote. I know with several medications my father has said that the generics are fine, and with others, he recommends going with the name brand.

You suggest that I ignored the line: you would have noticed this FDA requirement "Generic drug manufacturers must show that a generic drug is bioequivalent to the brand-name drug, in fact, I specifically addressed that as their standard, and why I think that it is problematic.

All your issues with drug sales reps, etc., are legit, and doctors being "really fucking ignorant" is really an overstatement for people that have extensive educational requirements, testing, and achievement levels. There are many things that doctors lack (sufficient education in statistics and access to up to date literature with the ability to apply in a clinical setting come to mind), but being "really fucking ignorant" of people that are certainly intelligent, and documented as intelligent, is just trolling with venom.

In reality, most doctors DON'T recommend the brand over the generic, because the pharmacist will substitute anyway and the patients don't want to pay more of a co-pay, also many HMO drug plans will NOT COVER a brand drug when the generic is available.

Doctor recommendations are not heavily made by sales reps, free gifts, or most recent literature. It is generally driven by whatever decision that can demonstrate in court was the "standard recommended treatment" and preferably a confusing regime (multiple drugs over different time frames) so that if the patient rolls snake eyes, the insurance company can dispute the malpractice case by blaming the patient, instead of having to risk showing a jury that a 98% efficacy rate still leaves 1 in 50 people losing.

Doctors push whatever solution is recommended by their board, because if they don't they get sued. Our medicine is determined by case law, not scientific studies.

In my opinion, some generics are as good as the brands, some aren't... You believe that they are all the same, okay, good for you.

Asking for double-blind tests proving that the generics aren't as good... where are the double-blind tests showing that each generic is just as good... hint, they AREN'T done. No double-blind is EVER performed on generics, they show bio-equivalence in the lab and go to market. That's my point, if the "inactive" ingredient change or OTHER changes in the generic cause differences in small segments of the population, then for some people, they may not work as well. Sometimes, bio-equivalence in the lab doesn't mean equivalent results in the field.

Newsflash, for lots of our medicine, we know the outcome, and we know what they do in the blood stream, but we don't always understand WHY they work, and for that, bio-equivalence may be meaningless.

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[bill_mcgonigle]

they have to show bio-equivalence in a lab setting, not the real world.

It would seem even a spectrographic analysis would be sufficient.

the fact that the "active" ingredients are the same but the non-active ingredients can differ... well, if the inactive ones affect absorption rate, etc., or how they handle people with unusual chemistry (and if you add up each unusual case that covers 2.5% of the population, you probably get 20% of people that have something abnormal), etc., and you have inferior drugs.

Ah, so it's at least a terminology run amok problem - if an ingredient has an effect on the mechanism of action I'd call it an active ingredient. A secondary active ingredient or adjuvant or whatever. I think of gelatin or rice flour as inactive ingredients.

Also, this story is interesting.

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[alexhmit01]

But the point is, bio-equivalence plus the 20% rule leads to generics being sometimes effective, sometimes not. The Wal-Mart example that you gave was the point I was making, often the generics come off the SAME line and are stamped/labeled differently... in those cases, the generic is JUST AS GOOD because it's the SAME.

In other cases, it's reverse engineered, and done well enough that it is just as effective. There is the 20% wiggle room, but no reason that it won't work.

In other cases, that 20% difference is enough to make the generic appear to be totally worthless, or at least worthless for SOME patients, yet they are stuck with it because the law allows substitution, and HMOs require it.

It's a crap shoot with anything... when it comes to OTC stuff, try the generic, see if it works for you, if so, great, use the generic, otherwise, switch back to the brand. When it comes to prescriptions, check with your doctor. Somethings are handled find by the generic, others not so much... if you don't trust your doctor, find a new doctor that you trust.

But blindly attacking me and all doctors (like the other response I got) doesn't change the fact that sometimes all isn't how it seams.

Re:Name brand prices go up...

[bill_mcgonigle]

But blindly attacking me and all doctors (like the other response I got) doesn't change the fact that sometimes all isn't how it seams.

I went back and read the other reply to your comment, and you're right - that was really rude. Some slashdotters really have no sense of civility or decorum.

For me and I'm sure many others you've alerted us to the bioequivalance test and that its restricted to 'active' ingredients which aren't always the whole story. Heck, yesterday I was just reading that the 'inactive' sweetener in Mylicon gas drops for infants is the real cause of gas relief, not the 'active' ingredient.

So, you've enlightened this reader and I appreciate it.

Chakrabarty case not relevant.

[Hamhock]

I think you're wrong in comparing the two. That case involves something that was manufactured, not discovered. Chakrabarty developed a new bacterium, capable of breaking down crude oil for use in oil spills. He didn't just discover it, he engineered it. There's a big difference.

Please fill me in - how can this happen ?

[unity100]

How can you go and patent something that is HARDCODED in INFINITE numbers of cells in EACH AND EVERY LIVING HUMAN BEING ?

Its mine, damn it

[Anne Thwacks]

A person's genes should be their inalienable right. They should not be able to buy or sell them, and no one else should be allowed to own them either. (Except maybe God, subject to appropriate paperwork)

Ah, irony.

[PIPBoy3000]

So Crichton criticizes a large number of scientists, questioning their authority. When I do the same for him, it's not okay? Mmm . . . double-standards. Love 'em.

His Aliens Cause Global Warming speech is great reading. I love the part here:

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

By this logic, it's stupid to even try to predict the future. You'll be wrong, and thus, it's a pointless task. You're in good health now? Living comfortably? Why bother flossing your teeth and putting money in your 401K? You can't predict the future, after all.

Re:Ah, irony.

[C0y0t3]

It's far easier to construct an argument against changing ones lifestyle (or an entire planet's) than it is the change the lifestyle. Talk is cheap; throwing money at problems is relatively easy too, easier than changing the simplest habits in any lasting or dramatic way. Human nature, like water, follows the course of least resistance. Politics, econonomics, psychology, all work like that. Public opinion will change on a very predictable schedule - exactly at the moment it is required to by the immediate problem. Until then, Crichton and you and everyone else will bandy words like confetti at a pep rally, but in the end, the truth will be seen for what it is and the fools whose folly distracted us from problems will be discredited (or simply forgotten) and those who foresaw the real outcome will be heralded as visionaries, whether they deserve it or not.

I picked the Colts in the Superbowl, but I didn't know much about football, really. Am I a genius or just lucky once in a while? Picking sides on an issue like this is exactly the same thing.

So like any good policy maker might say when confronted with this problem, I believe it is being looked at by the most capable professionals and when they determine what, if anything, needs to be done about it (besides continue to study it ad infinitum), I am sure they will let the proper people know. Meanwhile, I continue to have to earn a living, put my kids through school, and live my life in the relative comfort of my intense amusement and total lack of fear despite the fear mongering I am showered with on a daily basis if I so much as pick up a magazine or turn on my tv.

Besides: I already live in the desert.

Re:Ah, irony.

[aggiefalcon01]

By this logic, it's stupid to even try to predict the future. You'll be wrong, and thus, it's a pointless task. You're in good health now? Living comfortably? Why bother flossing your teeth and putting money in your 401K? You can't predict the future, after all.

Mmm . . . straw-man arguments. Love 'em.

or...

[Comboman]

Yeah, I know, it's crazy. It's almost as if someone's opinions in disparate subjects might be of different legitimacy!

...or (and this one will sound really crazy to politically polarized Americans) just maybe it's possible for people to have a combination of opinions that don't line up with the dogma of either the left or the right wing.

I'm gonna patent gravity...

[DimGeo]

... and am gonna sue all j00r @$$es off j00 n00bs!

Seriously, like I said, capital punishment for gene patenting. No less.

Dead on

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who hasn't read State of Fear should take note of this comment (and additionally note that it is a work of editorial fiction, so the libel charges are rather hard to substantiate).

Realclimate.org. That site is hardly even worth the electrons it runs on. While there are some legitimate arguments presented on it, there's much better, less prejudiced sources for those data and contentions. Overall it's about as open-minded as your typical 9/11-conspiracy site. The mere possibility that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses might not be causing global climate change or is even only one effect of many is as unstomachable to its editors as the idea that steel can undergo a deformation process at intermediate temperatures known as creep.

Crichton: Global Warming is a Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

See his "State of Fear".

Stick to dinosaurs, Mikey.

I Wish He Were Extinct

[Doc Ruby]

When you discredit yourself by talking pseudoscientific fiction as if it were facts on which to base politics then you should be ignored.

The books aren't bad, but anyone making decisions based on what's written in there is a fool who should themself be ignored.

Crichton's joining his famous voice against gene patents just makes it harder in the long run to fight it. It weakens the credibility, and attracts idiots who will believe anything a famous fool says who themselves become a difficult to defend flank in the battle.

Re:I Wish He Were Extinct

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Flamebait

I guess trollMods are natural fans of a blatherer of lies like Crichton. Can't debate the facts and logic, so the trollMod anonymously attacks. Everybody's a critic.

He's right, for the wrong reasons

[Sleeping Kirby]

I'm not trying to push my opinion, but I do want to speak it. To quote Stan Marsh of South Park, he's right for the wrong reasons.
 
And here's my daily joke:

Next up, J. K. Rowling's op-ed piece on alchemy why it is possible to turn lead into gold via a wooden wand and simple quantum physics

Genetic tests, In re Fisher, etc.

[Valdrax]

The original poster merely stated that "[f]acts of nature (such as the sequence of a gene) are not patentable." If we're going to narrow the discussion to only discovered sequences instead of created sequences, then we have to consider the patenting of the uses of said sequences.

Numerous patents exist for various genetic tests, and this is widely considered to be legal. After all, it's natural to patent novel uses of existing materials, and the current standard for non-obviousness is lax enough to allow the patent-described use of a set of genes whose function was previously unknown to qualify. While the genes themselves can't be patented, any interaction with them for the purpose of diagnosing an illness can be.

In addition, the CAFC heard In re Fisher in 2005 on patents on gene fragments (discovered in nature). The decision struck down the use patents for gene fragments, but only were they do not have a "specific and substantial" utility. In other words, where patents on gene fragments do have "specific and substantial" utility, they are allowed.

Now, if patents can cover any practical uses of a gene outside of natural reproduction, then it's equivalent to patenting the gene itself for purposes of what patent protection grants to the holder of the patent. A suitably broadly written patent and claims can easily nail down any practical application of a gene sequence, so we've already long crossed that line.

Worse, patenting scientific fact?

[EasyT]

Think that's bad? Now consider patenting a scientific fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19cricht on.html?ei=5088&en=9addb806498d2739&ex=1300424400

Michael Chricton is a pseudoscience douchebag...

[posterlogo]

I used to love his earlier work, but then I went to college and took real science classes, and then I went to grad school and got a ph D in biology and eventually realized he's probably done more to harm science than he has to promote it. He's a fearmongerer, who takes the worst of science's potential and treats it as if it's the only future outcome (dinosaurs running rampant, nanotech gone arwy, global warming is a ecoterror hoax). Take what he says with a grain of salt.

Rising Sun

[amerinese]

Actually, that wasn't his first bit of political idiocy. In the 80's he wrote an alarmist, nativist fiction book called Rising Sun on how the Japanese (whose economy at that time was trucking) were going to overtake the US. The epilogue included an explicit commentary where he basically said, "This was fiction, but I'm not kidding. You really should hate the Japanese because they are taking away the American manufacturing base." Oh the horrors, an economic successful country that isn't the U.S. Looking back, it really seems silly doesn't it? For all its flaws, the US economy has steadily grown at a rate faster than much of Europe. Our manufacturing base continues to shrink, but these days, it's going to China, and more to the point, so what? His political commentary has a record of being foolish.

who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

what some hack writer who dropped out of med school thinks?

"...environmentalism has killed 10-30 million"

[Radical Moderate]

I was curious about that claim, so I read the speech that's from. He doesn't back that figure up (imagine that!), but presumably he's referring to the 1972 ban on DDT and subsequent deaths from malaria in developing nations. This ignores the fact that DDT was only banned in the US and that it's efficacy had been diminishing since the 50's as mosquitoes became more resistant. Some good info here:
http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

Dixie Chicked

[MillionthMonkey]

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political? Are we enveloped in a society where it is expected that if you have any leverage, you push your beliefs on other people?

YES. We hopefully live in a society where the ONLY limiting factor keeping you from pushing your political opinions is the leverage you accumulate by any means (not just by means that are "approved", like a position as a CNN anchor). There is no expectation that you should just remain silent even if you do find yourself with an audience- presumably so that the society's institutions may continue to dominate political discourse and control what everyone sees hears and thinks, like some other countries I could think of.

If you let individuals have a louder voice in your culture, you're going to hear from individual idiots like Michael Crichton. But let's not throw the baby away with Crichton's bathwater. I get really angry when I hear people whining about "Hollywood celebrities" spouting off their opinions. This is a country with freedom of speech, so they can't arrest you (unless duh your speech is part of some other crime like fraud, perjury, etc.). But not being arrested is no guarantee that anyone will listen to you. In reality, all the opinions most people get firsthand from TV/cable/radio/print, and secondhand from all the idiots at work and on the Internet who parrot stuff they hear word for word, are controlled by six corporations who determine the nature of political discourse in this country: which stories will be covered (or invented out of whole cloth) by its newspapers, cable outlets, and radio stations, and which stories will not be heard at all.

Now once in a while you hear an unauthorized "extraneous" individual opinion being expressed in the mainstream media by some random individual. Blogs let anyone say anything to a self-selected Internet audience. But only very rarely does a random, non-corporate, indivual opinion escape from the lips of anyone in or being covered by the mainstream media, and typically that person will be in the entertainment industry. When you have become like me a world famous rock star or porn star or Hollywood personality, you realize that you have a ready-made audience out there that pretty much stalks you from their houses, reading up on you in the entertainment press and salivating over paparazzi photos of you and fawning over your every word. You have a gaggle of idiots ready to waste their time listening to anything you have to say. So it's only natural, when you find yourself on a soap box like that, that if you notice some horrible news story that isn't being covered, you'll think "OMG why is this not all over the news" and start making noise about it yourself. (Usually it's not all over the news because it's some godawful war with massive human suffering, no natural resources, or a villian already allied with the United States.) If it IS all over the news, you wouldn't bother talking about it.

Unauthorized opinions are dealt with using an ugly meme invented for the purpose, that has been surprisingly effective in a country that brags about freedom of speech: this whole idea that you should just "shut up and sing". Even if people will listen to you, you should keep your mouth shut anyway. You got famous for singing, or acting, not for knowing what you're talking about, and you should only talk about singing and acting and stuff like that. On other matters only corporate opinions can be trusted.

Basically there is a germ of truth to these complaints: People should not be giving extra weight to the opinions of Hollywood celebrities. But they do. From there it gets ugly: the opinions are simply not valid because they are opinions of Hollywood celebrities. IOW, opinions essentially

Mod parent UP!

[subl33t]

Here, here.

Re:Mod parent UP!

[gfxguy]

Thanks, but don't mod me up - I should get penalty points for forgetting which forum I was reading and not using the correct

blockquote tag

AND for not previewing!

Anti-Global Warming?

[thule]

The book seemed to cover two things. One is the point that environmentalist organizations can just as easily get caught up in money as any other "evil" corporation. That point rings true to me. People are people whether they are passionate about environmental causes or a product that their company produces. In fact, I would expect more blind devotion to an environmentalist organization than the average company since the "product" is such a good idea. Thus main story plot.

The second point of the book pointed out how some people are in predicting imminent disaster. The extreme predictions people have been making over the years have not materialized. Eventually the predictions may come about, but we still do no know enough about the planet to know for sure.

If I recall correctly, the book does not deny global warming, it just questions the methodology in the science of global climate. He calls for a more careful acquisition of the data and double blind processing of that data. In otherwords.... ummm.... science!

Agree! Weather-manipulating super-terrorists!?

[KWTm]

I agree that the plot was contrived. The protagonist struggles against groups who believe in global warming, using deadly means to make it look like there is global warming. Gimme a break.

Reminds me of those educational computer games: "You must defeat your enemies, space aliens who for some reason have travelled a billion light years to earth in order to use their super-advanced alien technology to change some English words to the incorrect spelling! To defeat the space aliens, the entire Earth is depending on you, a little fourth-grade kid, to correct the spelling on those words, and then all the aliens will suddenly self-destruct!"

Crichton fans please skip this book.

Now I don't know whether to read Prey or not. Gee.

Re:Agree! Weather-manipulating super-terrorists!?

[Da Fokka]

Im not sure what was more ridiculous: The machine that generated tsunamis in Los Angeles all the way from polynesia, the tiny squids they used as a poison or the super hot physics major.

Now I don't know whether to read Prey or not. Gee. I liked prey. It sure was better than state of fear, although it wasn't nearly as good as Airframe or Disclosure.

Re:Agree! Weather-manipulating super-terrorists!?

[flanktwo]

There's nothing ridiculous about the blue-ringed octopus.

Something we shouldn't forget

[CodeShark]

Before you assume that an author of fictional works such as Michael Crichton shouldn't say much about the real world because *cough* "their works aren't real", I suggest that you read this Wikipedia article on Dr. Michael Crichton:

He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964. Crichton was also initiated into the honors organization Phi Beta Kappa. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. He graduated at Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969 and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, in 1969-1970. Seems to me like we ought to be getting on board with Dr. Crichton in terms of congressional support, rather than lambasting his efforts because of his books.

Can i suit the owner of Hepatitis C?

[OpenDoc]

Hey wait a second. So some guy claims to be the owner of Hepatitis C, and is even able to collect rent for any study and research of his prize possession: "The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study this disease. Not surprisingly, many other researchers choose to study something less expensive. What if his "possession" infects my liver? What recourse do i have against this idiot? It's his virus. He makes money off it. He decides who can study, research and ostensibly treat his virus. He's got a business based on controlled and select access to his prized possession. What's his liability if his dog, er, virus, attacks me?

Michael Crichton need to drop dead

[Anonymous Coward]

It needs to be said every time his name comes up. Bastard gives a bad name to science fiction artists, writers, and men simply by claiming to be one of all three.

Next?

[ari_j]

I enjoyed Next. Forget popular - he's a good author. Good authors survive the temporary whims of the mob.

Gene patents not only bad. They're ridiculous.

[quixote9]

Crichton has no credibility after his global warming BS. But the man is an amateur at climatology. On the other hand, he did get an MD once, in the dim past. Not that it helped his novels all that much, but at least he has a bit of background in biology, and I guess it shows.

Gene patents should never have been allowed. There used to be a law that life couldn't be patented (for obvious reasons, since nobody invented it). Then, during Reagan's day, at the dawn of the biotech industry, the government decided that letting those companies patent everything in sight would give them "the incentive to continue innovating." (Where have we heard that, more recently?) They got away with it because in the good old days non-biologists barely knew what DNA was, and the whole thing involved scientists in white coats speaking long words. I kid you not.

Think for a second about what a gene is: a functional segment of DNA. Nobody invented that any more than anyone invented life. (There are yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs) and bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs). My point doesn't apply to them. They really were invented.) People were given patents for FINDING the segments. Applying the same principle to something we're more familiar with, you could go to the library, find a useful chapter in a book, and copyright it.

Biotech companies could have legitimately protected trade secrets. They could have legitimately charged money for being the brokers of knowledge about genetics, just as when somebody does library research for a third party, they get paid.

What they can't do, what they should never have been allowed to do, and what should be revoked across the board is the insane privilege to patent life.

... State of Fear

[Anomalyst]

I forget, is that California or Florida?

Gene Patents

[dcray2000]

God made it over millions of years. Now it belongs to someone because they -discovered- it.

I'm going to patent the tree.

Why we need Mr.Crichton on this one

[BayaWeaver]

I see there are a few who disparage Michael Crichton because just he is a popular author. Well, as a celerbrity people pay attention when he speaks. Even the most eminent of biomedical researchers and patent law experts cannot hope to get the attention he can. You need publicity and money to get anything done in the political arena and celebrities are indispensable for both. As for his expertise and the value of his opinions, it has been mentioned many times before that he does have a biomedical background and I don't doubt that he keeps up with the advances in science by reading the better magazines and journals. And I'm pretty sure he gets to talk with knowledgeable biomedical researchers and patent law experts who may or may not give you the time of the day. As for the money part, I hope he can put some of his own where his mouth is and fund a lobby group against gene patents. No doubt he would be up against well-funded powerful lobbyists from those want gene patents. But that would be better than nothing, right?

Re:But where's the money?dailyrotten.com/

[giminy]

I think you have a severe misunderstanding of what both a patent is, and also what a genetic patent is.

A patent covers the process of creating something. It does not cover the thing itself. A gene patents the process of creating an organism with a particular sequence. If such an organism already exists in nature, it cannot be patented (nature gets prior art). Gene patents cover essentially two cases: 1) where scientists give evolution a nudge in a particular direction that the organism probably would have gone in anyway, 2) where scientists push evolution in a direction that it probably would not have gone. 1 is kind of a grey area for patents, I admit. But the truth is, the patent lasts for 20 years...it will probably take natural selection longer than that to evolve the patented gene (for most macroorganisms).

Gene patents and chip design patents are roughly equivalent. gene patents cover the process of manipulating genes to create the desired traits in a living organism. logical circuit patents cover the process of manipulating logical gates to create the desired mathematical outcome of electricity. I could make the same analogy between gene patents and physical patents...physical patents cover the process of creating a device with some characteristics. In the case of logical circuits and mechanical objects, the course of R&D is actually a lot cheaper -- logic is well-understood and can be simulated without experiment. Most of the rules of physics are also well-understood and can be simulated. Genetic information needs to be tried and tested still, though, and thus is a lot more expensive to perform. All these patents are doing roughly the same thing, that is, patenting a process of doing something that manifests itself in a physical way.

My argument remains the same. If there's no money in doing genetic research, people will stop doing genetic research. How many people attain a college education at great expense to themselves so they can design chips that don't make them any money? I thought so :). If chip designs aren't covered by patent anymore, I'll just sit around and wait for intel to double the speed of DIV operations, and then I'll duplicate their results and undersell them because I don't have to pay researchers. Intel will go out of business and I'll have made a quick buck. But Intel won't be hiring chip designers anymore, and I won't be hiring chip designers...so who is going to design the new Core 3 CPU?

You could argue that gene patents could be offered at such lower cost, etc, but the problem is the same. The company that leeches the heavily-researched medicines will undersell the company that did the research, and everybody will lose.

If it weren't for all the money in this game, all these life-saving gene therapies and treatments would never have existed in the first place...same goes for whatever widget it is that you own (which is probably covered by a patent). Just remember, the patent will expire in a few years, after it pays for the researcher needed to develop it (and yes, sadly, the greedy CEO). After that, anybody will be allowed to duplicate the process in their basement.

Reid

He serves a purpose

[zogger]

Science is fully entwined with politics, academia, government, taxes and business. It just "is" is all. Want money for your research? Get a job, self fund as an individual or business, get VC money, or apply for grants, or get the Uni to help fund you. Them's your choices right there. Outside of getting a job and self funding your research, the other guys with the pocketbook are going to get a say in what you do. And the reason is many-fold, not the least of which is if you want to run a decade long study to see if choclate, strawberry or vanilla is the most popular ice cream, you'll have to come up with a reason for the research that makes sense to anyone else when you got your hand out. If you say government should do it all, now you are talking taxes, and why should people who like pistachio fund your top three flavor study again? If it is private business, what's in it for them?

Society as a whole can fund some research, just like society as whole can have some full time professional artists, musicians, etc, rappers, pro ball players, etc.but it gets to the point that someone has to do the ordinary work, too, the day to day stuff that lets our society function. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could just have unlimited funds and budgets to go off and study everything they wanted to, but until all of life's necessities are automagically present for everyone, we got this gosh darn "choices" and "hard decisions" deal to contend with. At best, I think you'll wind up with a system remarkably like what we have now, a blend that really satisfies no one completely, but pisses off the least amount of people in the smallest way possible.

With that said, sure, the system for R and D could be tweaked more (personally I am against business process patents, software patents and patenting natural "things"), and I think that is what we as humans are doing, precisely from arguing about who gets what funding for what purpose, etc, and if politics and money is involved-oh well, that's how it goes. Look at this last big controversial UN climate study, EVERY single word in that study had to be vetted through political bureaucrats in different nations before it was released. Why? Their nickle, that's why. They have political and business ramifications to contend with, so they release a study that is still probably flawed to some extent, but satisfies the most people with pissing off the least amount, back to the normal human compromise deal. We need to still debate things, we need to always be open to even fringe viewpoints, because the "system" is inherently flawed, because humans run this system, and we are really imperfect, argumentative and ornery critters, and I say RIGHT ON, we NEED to be that way. Keeps everyone on their toes and stuff. I'm certainly more than aware of all the old 1970s "ZOMG, ICE AGE COMING, RUN FER THE HILLS!" jazz we had shoved at us. then we has the endless "agent orange-harmless as the dew, safe as momma's milk!" and so on, a lot of examples from "scientific experts".

I tend to take a lot of dire predictions with more than a pinch of salt once I notice little political clues tied to them like "gee,gosh darn it, looks like we might need world government and a CARBON TAX now", and stuff like that. You can't tell me there aren't a lot of little power mad schemers in their pushing this stuff, you can *see* it.

There are always scheming wheels inside of wheels, even with alleged "pure" science, whioch has never existed anyway so it is silly to think it exists now. That's why we need dudes like Crichton, guys able to look at situations and go "waitaminnit-just a minnit, let's really think about this and look at all the agendas here"

Now I am a big conservationist and alternative and decentralized energy advocate, but I can still see some pretty large scale "big bro" action coming with this "emergency climate change" deal. I get more than a touch nervous when some werll known scientific goofball drops little hints that maybe the world would be better off with billion

Re:Ah, the child rapist guy

[shmert]

But it's ok if you get villified by the scientific community, because you're a famous author, and have your critics make guest appearances in your books as child rapists! No, not kidding.

Not the most mature response to having your ideas attacked, hey?

Re:But where's the money?dailyrotten.com/

[frogstar_robot]

Thank you for the clarifications but my point stands as well: much potentially life and money saving research doesn't get done because of these patents. And I would not be surprised if it turned out the value to be found in these IP mined areas outweighs the value of what lawyer slingers are doing.

Michael Crichton, author of "State of Fear"

[tji]

Let's see if the /. crowd gets behind him now that he writes something generally agreeable here.. Probably.

For me, he has lost a lot of credibility after "State of Fear", which was an anti-global warming book.

Re:Michael Crichton, author of "State of Fear"

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Personally I think he's a hero for calling to light the anti-corporate dogma that's being pulled over our eyes.

Re:Michael Crichton, author of "State of Fear"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's the problem in America today, we're anti-corporate. That darn Bush administration and their excessive regulation, the wall between government and business prohibiting any influence from corporate America over the government.

Those damn scientists and their anti-corporate CO2 measurements and analysis of ice core samples for the historical climate record.

You're right. That guys my hero too.

Hype to sell books.

[TapeCutter]

"All I and Mr. Chrichton want is clean science. No consensus, no politics. Capice?"

If Chrichton wants "clean science" why did he accept an invitation to give evidence on "the facts behind climate change" to a senate commitee. The guy is entitled to his opinion but I and many others object to his fiction being misrepresented as science to policymakers and the public.

It's not even really about politics either, Chrichton does what he does to sell science fiction books. Capice?

Pharmacists and Generics and Profit

[WebHostingGuy]

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=6038706

From the mouth of a pharmacist:

"...at least 30 percent (profit) on a generic medication as opposed to eight or nine percent on a brand name"

"65 to 70 percent of his inventory is made up of generic drugs"

willfully ignorant

[TapeCutter]

George Will: Willfully ignorant, plain and simple.

Economic models: Demonstratably less robust than climate models, psuedo-skeptics assume Friedman's economic theories are devine truth and therefore immune to critisisim.

Scientific consensus: Simply another way to say "established theory", the very act of submiting a paper for peer review is the formal act of asking other scientists for a "consensus" that the predictive theory contained in a paper cannot be disproven.

Judging by the way "scientific consensus" is shat apon in this thread there are sure one hell of a lot of "nerds" who have never heard of the "republic of science", let alone have a clue about what it means.

The IPCC SPM was peer-reviewed and agree apon by every national science body on the planet. Getting 2500 scientists to agree on a 20 page report about a "fuzzy" and contraversial subject is indeed an extrodinary effort, like all "established theroy" the report is consertative.

But hey, George Will and the op/ed pages of the WSJ can cut through all that scientific mumbo-jumbo and have found that "enviromentalists" are plotting to take SUV's away from the fun-loving public. Give us a fucking break and go and read something rather than simply cherry-picking psuedo-skeptics that agree with your politics.

MOD Parent informative.

[TapeCutter]

"Are you aware that Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, has YET to release his data and methods for peer review?"

As the GP pointed out with the link to M.Mann's informative RealClimate site, this particular attack on his peer-reviewed papers has been around for years, and as pointed out by the GP, the psudeo-skeptical attack was a troll when it first appeared and still a troll today.

The reason for the attack on the hockey-stick is that psuedo-skeptics wrongly belived if they could discredit his work then the 1997 IPCC report would fall to bits. What has happened instead is that the graph has become more robust due to independent peer-reviewed replication (not to metion the hockey-stick's predictions have matched emprical observations). Even most psuedo-skeptics have quietly dropped this attack but it intersesting to see some random slashdotter in a basement somewhere is still regurgitating ancient FUD as fact.

Only in the USA can we patent life itself,

[rmacl]

The ability to patent genes is outragious. Are the elements next? We'll have to pay to consume oxygen! His book "Next" is worth the read.

Wake me up when he complains about copyrights

[cylcyl]

in the same way

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED

[IflyRC]

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET


The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled "Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?"

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

Re:But where's the money?dailyrotten.com/

[giminy]

I still don't get how the life and money-saving research is going to get done without patents.

I'll ask for the same thing again: Show me a proposal that gives researchers the money they need to do to do meaningful research, without leveraging patents. I'll happily agree with you that patents are bad if a feasible alternative exists that provides a lower-cost product. Until then, I'm going to have to keep saying: Patents aren't perfect, but they're the best thing we've got.