Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Michael Crichton on Why Gene Patents Are Bad

Posted by Zonk on from the life-finds-a-way dept.

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.'"

2 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Look on the bright side... by robably · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  2. Re:I wish that he had written this earlier. by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.