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

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: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?

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: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.