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

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

[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

[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?

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.

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

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?

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

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.

[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: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: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

[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.