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.'"
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.
Sadly, we're living in the kind of society where celebrities need to tell us these sorts of things are bad.
Blerg.
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.