Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Running Into IP Brick Walls
hlovy writes "The profit motive can — yes, shockingly — drive biotech research. But, according to a report by the AFP news agency, this same drive to make money is actually putting the brakes on embryonic stem cell research. With the research already set back years due to government research bans, US scientists now face roadblocks because other universities or companies have secured exclusive rights."
"In this new Sony Biotech Update, all users who previously used to Run have been downgraded to Walk. No apologies have been issued to any members of the Special Olympics."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The way IP SHOULD work is this : first of all, compulsory licensing. If you patent any idea, or ask for government protection against unauthorized people who pirate or create a knockoff of your product, then you MUST
1. Offer terms for a license to the technology, with rates proportional to the industry and the value of the product
2. Provide the technical details needed for someone else who licenses your idea to begin work within 30 days of payment of initial fees for licensing.
It is, but without the ban on government funding of that research, a lot of the research would now be publicly funded and therefore public domain. Instead, the private sector filled in, and have managed to get exclusive patents on a lot of the stuff they researched, meaning that even if the government or other companies do the legwork themselves the results cannot be applied to further research.
If the government funds the discovery of "a process to replace organs using self-donated tissue and stem cells", then many companies can refine that technique, apply it, and the one who comes up with a way to do it the most cheaply and effectively wins (but everyone else can apply it in different ways which may be more suitable for different organs, etc).
If a private company funds the discover of the same process, they can patent it, and no one else has any incentive to make improvements to the process unless the company that funded it is feeling generous.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Bury the real scientists in a mountain of FUD.
Make great advancements, but don't pursue them unless they produce a profit.
While you're not using those advancements, be sure to sue everyone who stumbles upon what you stumbled upon first.
It wasn't banned, it just wasn't funded by government. Stem cell research was welcome to continue, just not using government money.
Jonas Salk refused to patent the polio vaccine.. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"
There is no 'greater good' research anymore, as long as people get their $. Capitalism: A Love Story is an interesting movie. Yes, it is Michael Moore, but if you go in expecting some slant it's entertaining to see how stuff has changed from "I'm not going to patent something that saved people from the Iron Lung" to "Screw you guys, I gotta get my patents".
> exclusivity contracts in medical research are stupid.
I don't think that's exactly the problem. The article is about patents.
Lots of people have problems with biotech patents because it seems immoral to patent a life form.
I sympathize with that view, but in my opinion DNA is software. On patenting software I like Donald Knuth's view, that software is math and it makes no sense to patent math.
Government money is tax money, paid by all the residents of the country. If everybody paid for it, then everybody should own it. Therefore anything financed with public money should be in the public domain, no exceptions.
Yes, but James Thompson, the man who patented the embryonic stem cell, has not patented any novel DNA or idea. He patented something he didn't invent nor engineer; he patented something he had nothing to do with aside from observation, and only won because our patent system is so out of date it doesn't know how to address life forms, and that he was the first person to try to.
This same jerkoff (or is it the patent system that's wrong here) charges you $200k licensing per year to do any biomedical research with it, and $5k a year for universities to license simply to do any academic research at all.
Nothing about the patent is worthy of a patent. On the contrary, Yamanaka's Induced Pluripotent Stem cell work is patentable, as he has invented novel ways to revert differentiated cells to stemness. Sheng Ding has also pioneered new methods that don't include lentiviral methods (like Yamanaka), and instead use small molecules that are homologous to the desired IPSC-inducing biochemicals (Sox2, nanog, oct4, etc).
To offer some contrast: if Yamanaka were like Thompson, he could have patented the IDEA of 'reverting differentiated cells to stem-like cells exhibiting stemness". And in doing so he would be able to cover with his patent that which Ding has done, despite Ding having his own method. But I'm sure nearly every democratic voter here would agree that Yamanaka and Ding have achieved the same end by different means, and thus would each have patents to their methodology.
Fortunately, IPSC are *NOT* ESC, and so for now people can do stem-cell research without paying the JT tax simply because JT was 'first'.
Under Clinton there was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, Bush was President, so no, he did not pass a law of any kind. President Bush issued an Executive Order that allowed Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as long as the research was on pre-existing stem cell lines. Before that, there was no federal funding of any embryonic stem cell research.
I do not know where you got your "information", but it is completely wrong.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't plan to pay you (anyone reading this) to establish a church on Mars. You may think it's a good idea, but I have objections.
However, please don't interpret this as a ban on your doing so.
If you do, you are dum.
Thanks,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5