Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
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.
>>>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.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
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.
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?
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
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
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
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
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?
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory