Slashdot Mirror


'Treasure Trove' In Oceans May Bring Revolutions In Medicine and Industry

dryriver sends this excerpt from the Guardian: "Scientists have pinpointed a new treasure trove in our oceans: micro-organisms that contain millions of previously unknown genes and thousands of new families of proteins. These tiny marine wonders offer a chance to exploit a vast pool of material that could be used to create innovative medicines, industrial solvents, chemical treatments and other processes, scientists say. Researchers have already created new enzymes for treating sewage and chemicals for making soaps from material they have found in ocean organisms. 'The potential for marine biotechnology is almost infinite,' says Curtis Suttle, professor of earth, ocean and atmospheric sciences at the University of British Columbia. 'It has become clear that most of the biological and genetic diversity on Earth is – by far – tied up in marine ecosystems, and in particular in their microbial components. By weight, more than 95% of all living organisms found in the oceans are microbial. This is an incredible resource.'"

107 comments

  1. Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We'll wipe out all ocean life before we can fully reap the benefits.

    1. Re:Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      We'll wipe out all planet life before we can fully reap the benefits.

    2. Re:Death by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry guys, but you need to park that expanded self opinion someplace. Life on the planet is just fine. Hell, after the big asteroid hit, the earth was blasted, smothered, roasted, frozen, and left in the dark for month or years. Ten million years later an the diversity was extraordinary. We're the endangered species, and yeah we'll take out a slew of vertebrates with us.

    3. Re:Death by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell, after the big asteroid hit, the earth was blasted, smothered, roasted, frozen, and left in the dark for month or years.

      Asteroid? Asteroid? You Late Cretaceous sissies, you young whippersnappers, if you had any idea what happened to us in the Permian, you'd shut up and look away in embarrassment. You have no idea what killed us. Heck, we don't even have an idea what killed us!

      Sincerely yours, Gorgonops from south-western Pangaea.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Death by Raenex · · Score: 0

      We're the endangered species

      Nope. Humans are too smart and adaptable.

    5. Re:Death by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 2

      HAhahahahahahahahahahhahahaah....

      Ow, my sides.

    6. Re:Death by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Laugh all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The population has grown to billions of people and we live in all kinds of environments. Of course it's popular to be self-loathing and cynical on Slashdot, facts be damned.

    7. Re:Death by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      The facts do speak for themselves. You just heard it wrong. Humans are extremely fragile and dependent on a number of narrow band ranges in the environment. Manufacture of devices, which is dependent on large populations of humans existing for extended periods of time are all the "adaptation" that humans have.

      Tunnel vision on your part. What, smelting iron requires "large populations of humans existing for extended periods of time"? What about making plows, bows, and arrows, building houses...we had to wait for New York to appear to do these things? We have vastly overpopulated the planet (compared to the average mammal) even before we entered the modern gadgety era.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You both are arguing true things, that smooth running large societies are fragile, but on the other hand I believe humans will emigrate to other planets in time to prevent the human race ever becoming extinct.

  2. Re:Industry? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

    Why would anyone seek treatment for a non-fatal disease when doing so puts you in debt for decades.

  3. I saw this TV show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SeaQuest DSV. It was on NBC I think.

  4. Re:Industry? by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because you can patent it, sell it and use the profits to buy off, er, make generous campaign contributions.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  5. Almost infinite? by jomegat · · Score: 4, Funny

    What does "almost infinite" even mean?

    --

    In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    1. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A whole lot. But like oil, not forever. It's driving a point. Your being too logical.

    2. Re:Almost infinite? by lessthan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Almost infinite means nearly limitless. Does that help?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    3. Re:Almost infinite? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Interesting

          It means that we'll farm it to the edge of extinction, and then ponder what happened to them all... Kinda like...

      Hunting whales for blubber, and then wondering why there whales are almost extinct.

      Using pesticide on virtually everything, and then wondering why bees are dying off.

      Farming marginally arid land, and being surprised by the result.

      I'm not an environmentalist wingnut. Sometimes the answer to "what could possibly go wrong" is really obvious.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "almost infinite" even mean?

      The number 8.

    5. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ten raised almost literally to the power of infinity!

    6. Re:Almost infinite? by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thoroughly agree with the point you're trying to make. But note that pesticides are not that strongly implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder. The problem is unknown in Australia, where pesticides are just as heavily used as anywhere else. It is extremely likely that it's due to some kind of environmental stress, which fits in with your abuse-of-resources theme.

    7. Re:Almost infinite? by jamesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does "almost infinite" even mean?

      Kind of like infinity, but just a little bit less.

      I've been doing a bit of work with pacemaker clusters lately, and infinity there is defined to be 1000000, so I guess "almost infinite" is around 999998.

      More likely, "almost infinite" means that obviously they know it's not actually infinite, but there are more than they'll ever get to analyse in their lifetimes so the difference doesn't have any meaning.

    8. Re:Almost infinite? by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, because you've just replaced one illogical expression with another. An infinite value remains infinite, regardless of any finite value you subtract from it.

      Of course, what they're trying to say is "this resource is so big we can't imagine ever using it up." Which, of course, says little about their imagination.

    9. Re:Almost infinite? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is unknown in Australia, where pesticides are just as heavily used as anywhere else

      Pesticides have been expensive in Australia due to few suppliers having close to a monopoly so they might be used less than some other places, plus there were some deaths from overexposure decades ago that got a lot of press and seem to have had farm workers take care with concentrations ever since. There is also a lot of uncleared land so pesticide use may be in "islands" surrounded by the whole instead of the other way around in as in other places more intensively farmed.

      Also, what would be called "organic" in some places is the norm for some things in Australia since the plant that comes from overseas may not have a local pest. For some things, a physical barrier (tunnel houses or bags around bananas) does the job without pesticides but that is relatively recent and may be part of chasing after an "organic" label and not widespread.

      However there are some places in Australia where pesticides have been used a lot but there are still plenty of bees, so even if pesticides are used less on average in Australia than other places it still doesn't tell us anything about the bees.

    10. Re:Almost infinite? by siddesu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In slightly more general numeric terms, finite is much below 9000, almost infinite is the interval from there up to and including 9000, and everything over 9000 is infinite.

    11. Re:Almost infinite? by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

      pacemaker clusters

      Who needs more than one pacemaker? I mean, unless you're from Gallifrey or something.

      (...Yes, yes, I was just making a funny.)

    12. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your sig.

    13. Re:Almost infinite? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Infinity is not a quantity.

    14. Re:Almost infinite? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      More likely, "almost infinite" means that obviously they know it's not actually infinite, but there are more than they'll ever get to analyse in their lifetimes so the difference doesn't have any meaning.

      Lifetime is the key word here: almost infinite means that we can screw the ecosystem and we will not face the consequences. Our children will, but we do not care

    15. Re:Almost infinite? by Genda · · Score: 1

      Infinite minus 5...

    16. Re:Almost infinite? by Livius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, what they're trying to say is "this resource is so big we can't imagine ever using it up." Which, of course, says little about their imagination.

      Actually, it says everything about their imagination. Or rather, lack thereof.

    17. Re:Almost infinite? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Infinity is not a quantity.

      Does that make "almost infinity" == "almost not a quantity"?

    18. Re:Almost infinite? by fm6 · · Score: 2

      One theory I've heard is that the huge demand for pollination services in most countries has kept beekeeper moving their hives around all the time, often transporting them thousands of miles at a time. This stresses the colonies and makes them susceptible to a variety of ailments. This practice is supposed to be much less prevalent in Oz. This is consistent with the fact that there's no obvious link between CCD and any single external factor.

      None of which should be construed as a defense of indiscriminate use of pesticides. That most definitely does cause all kind of problems. CCD just doesn't happen to be one of them.

    19. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "almost infinite" even mean?

      In this instance, the word "almost" is a synonym for "practically." And as we all know, "practically" means "not really, but I'm going to pretend like it is."

    20. Re:Almost infinite? by ablestmage · · Score: 1

      Think of it as approaching the unreachable speed of light..

    21. Re:Almost infinite? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes. It means that it'll take some time for them to patent everything.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:Almost infinite? by krashnburn200 · · Score: 1

      it means there aren't enough fingers/toes even when I line up ALL my grad students to count that high!

    23. Re:Almost infinite? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Guess Slipknot got this one right:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFJIBtqunHY

    24. Re:Almost infinite? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Infinity is not a quantity.

      Of course not. Every mathematician knows it's an infinite number of quantities.

    25. Re:Almost infinite? by epine · · Score: 2

      "Almost infinite" could serve as meaning creating new varieties faster than we can detect and sequence the little bastards, for a pessimistic extension of Moore's law.

      Here's a second good candidate for "almost infinite":

      The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10^-4.

      Q: How big is the universe?
      A: Physicists believe the universe is infinite, almost.

    26. Re:Almost infinite? by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      It was a beowulf cluster of pacemakers. Can you imagine the power of this?

    27. Re:Almost infinite? by chill · · Score: 1

      Now you know what that little "infinity minus 1" symbol used in math class really means.

      I always wondered.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    28. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it as approaching the unreachable speed of light..

      But light reaches it in a vacuum.

    29. Re:Almost infinite? by deimtee · · Score: 1

      It's pretty well established that it's neonicotinoid insecticides. Bees are very sensitive to them, and even amounts too small to directly kill the bees still weaken them enough for other things to kill the hives.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    30. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw an article on CCD and the problem they said was a fungus or mold or some shit that was killing the bees and they had no defense for it.

    31. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is unknown in Australia, where pesticides are just as heavily used as anywhere else.

      Do you have actual proof for this claim?

    32. Re:Almost infinite? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The sources I've read say otherwise. We can have a link duel if you want, but I find them boring.

    33. Re:Almost infinite? by fm6 · · Score: 2

      So fine, in the context of cosmological curvature, "almost infinite" makes sense. In the context of natural resources, "almost infinite" means "I'll be dead by the time it's used up."

    34. Re:Almost infinite? by mikael · · Score: 1

      The latest theory is "zombees". https://www.zombeewatch.org./

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    35. Re:Almost infinite? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      A little more care with your URLs?

      From the site: "CCD probably is caused by multiple contributing factors including pathogens, parasites and pesticides. Honey bees parasitized by Apocephalus borealis abandon their hive, a behavior associated with CCD. One of our goals is to determine how big a role, if any, the fly plays in hive losses in various parts of North America."

    36. Re:Almost infinite? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      According to the wiki page, USDA research says that pesticides may be implicated in CCD. There's a long list of suspected causes on that page but the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that the real cause is currently unkown.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    37. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This points much of the blame at beekeepers trying to control parasites, particularly the varroa mite as the major source of bee poisoning. CCD is of still not understood but modern pesticide practices are reducing the hazard posed by crop spraying. The neonicotonid contamination of beeswax is ppb where several other poisons that harm bees are much more prevalent.

    38. Re:Almost infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness, I knew a guy in university whose heart nerve had been cut (or disabled, or whatever). He had 3 pacemakers, 2 as backups in case the first failed (like a set of extra flight computers) because if the pacemakers failed then nothing would get him back up. Granted, he was a special case but he did have an acute need for multiple pacemakers.

    39. Re:Almost infinite? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Awesome "Forbidden Planet" reference. Kudos to you, sir.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  6. Hooray! Let's patent the SHIT out of the oceans! by Qubit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, was I being too cynical there?

    But actually, is someone going to try to patent the shit (read: actual shit) that comes out of the oceans? Because I think that they really might try...

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  7. Not allowed! by cvtan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Too bad PETA will not allow us to exploit bacteria in this cruel manner. You have to ask their permission first. Individually.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Not allowed! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I'm okay with PETA. Yes, they are mildly annoying, but they more than make up for it in sheer amusement and very compelling PSA pictures.

    2. Re:Not allowed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks heavily photoshopped though.

    3. Re:Not allowed! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Regarding the later picture I suppose fatter and older chicks.

      Anyway, vegan since 15+ years and lacto-ovo-vegetarian since about 25 year here but European and I think Peta is lame and have never understood this nudity crap.

      Guess it may be how US society and culture work but it's lame. "Look! Nude chick! I agree! Chicks should be nude!"

      Over here the information would be about actual animals. And back in the good days people would --removed due to shitty spying governments-- than get nekkid.

    4. Re:Not allowed! by dasunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyway, vegan since 15+ years and lacto-ovo-vegetarian since about 25 year here but European and I think Peta is lame and have never understood this nudity crap.

      Vegan, American, and still think PETA is lame.

      To put it in perspective for non-vegs, think of the most inane, zealous type of individual who supports the same political views as you do. The sort of individual who does more damage to your beliefs than the most ardent opponent. That's PETA in a nutshell.

  8. Re:Industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are entirely right! Industry prefers to have the government research it and then take the credit and profits for the research. Just like industry prefers to have small businesses take the risks and then steal the business and profit from them.

  9. Re:Industry? by r1348 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes! Just like the Internet! Down with the government!

  10. Extinction in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad humankind is causing mass extinctions and loss of biodiversity in the ocean, just as he is on land.

    1. Re:Extinction in the ocean by Genda · · Score: 1

      What's the old proverb? Don't shit where you eat! Would seem the folks in charge haven't heard it. We strip mine the oceans at the same time we use them for toilets. That's okay, the jellyfish are gonna do really well. They have put up with every cataclysm for most of the last billion years, We aren't even a speed bump in that kind of biological staying power. Other ocean going species will have a harder time of it.

    2. Re:Extinction in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad humankind is causing mass extinctions and loss of biodiversity in the ocean, just as he is on land.

      By turning air pollution into water pollution.

  11. Great! by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've used up all the fish. Now we can work on the smaller stuff!

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've used up all the fish.

      Is that why the whales are leaving our oceans? ("...thanks for all the fish.")

    2. Re:Great! by Genda · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its krill or be krilled

    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've used up all the fish.

      Is that why the whales are leaving our oceans? ("...thanks for all the fish.")

      Exactly. Its not thanks for some of the fish.

    4. Re:Great! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That joke was microscopic!

    5. Re:Great! by mikael · · Score: 1

      I'm kraken up with laughter and rolling about on the ocean floor.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  12. Yah, really? by TexVex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm old enough to remember when the Rain Forest was the "treasure trove" of new medicines.

    Even then, the documentarians had the wit to point out that the main goal of researching all those new wonderful plant cures would be to figure out how they could create synthetic versions of nature's miracles and patent them.

    So, you know what? I don't give a shit. If somebody finds something revolutionary and decides to share it with humanity, then by all means please slap me around some and make sure I am aware of it. Because not even the invention of aspirin (developed from old common knowledge about the medicinal properties of willow bark) went without patent-related controversy.

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    1. Re:Yah, really? by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember when the Rain Forest was the "treasure trove" of new medicines.

      Novel approach:
      1. take an almost infinite number of monkeys and have them hammer out sequences of GATC to create a vast pool of previously unknown genes,
      2. ...
      3. treasure trove.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    2. Re:Yah, really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      figure out how they could create synthetic versions of nature's miracles and patent them.

      We have too many frivolous patents, but not all patents are frivolous. If someone goes to the trouble and expense of identifying a naturally occurring chemical, finding a disease that it cures, and figures out how to synthesize and apply it, that is not frivolous. Encouraging that kind of investment in research is exactly why we have patents.

    3. Re:Yah, really? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A more recent example than asprin would be Taxol/Paclitaxel. Discovered in 1967 from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, and useful in treating cancer.

      Anyway, stories such as these are to inform if you're interested. News for nerds and all that. You don't give a shit, that's fine. No one was expecting you to get off your couch and start helping search for the cure for cancer as a result of this story. So go back to whatever it was you were doing. Maybe reading about apple suing samsung or something exciting like that. The biology community apologizes for this not being as interesting as you would hope. We'll get back to searching the ends of the earth for the cure to cancer. We probably won't bother slapping you around if we find anything useful though. Just maybe think about supporting funding for the NIH or cancer research. As miraculous as taxol is (saved my mother's life, breast cancer), the side effects are tough. You really want us searching the oceans and rainforests for better drugs before you develop cancer yourself.

    4. Re:Yah, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm sure step 2 is going to be real easy. Let's get our simian pharmaceutical computing cluster cranking. Um, how many bananas does that need?

    5. Re:Yah, really? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      You too? These articles tend to pop up every 5 or 10 years. I remember when they thought there was going to be all kinds of stuff from coral reefs.

      --
      C|N>K
    6. Re:Yah, really? by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      An almost infinite amount...

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    7. Re:Yah, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I was thinking, "If you have to ask how many bananas that'll take, then you can't afford it."

    8. Re:Yah, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am old enough to remember when outside the cave was the "treasure trove".

      Inside also!

    9. Re:Yah, really? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The problem with what you suggest is who is going to pay for it? Finding neat new molecules/ideas is interesting and exciting, so academics tend to be interested in this and the NIH tends to fund it. Figuring out if those new molecules/ideas actually work or if they cause cancer is boring and expensive, so that doesn't get funded, except by corporations who of course patent them. Actually, more often the model is that the universities that come up with them patent them and sell them to corporations to help defray their own costs (they don't get much for them, because 95% of the time they don't work out).

      The only way anybody would actually come up with a big drug and share it with the world is if the world pays for it in advance - sight unseen. I'm all for finding ways to make that happen, but right now we don't fund organizations like the NIH to do this sort of work.

      Drug R&D is kind of like selling sealed packs of baseball cards. You can either leave them sealed and get a moderate amount for them, or break them open and get much less, or a LOT more. At the stage where the government stops doing R&D they're like a sealed package, and when the corporations are done they're opened up. Of course, they don't actually sell the ones that aren't worth anything, because nobody would buy them.

    10. Re:Yah, really? by TexVex · · Score: 1

      I would be okay with having government funded pure research, with its results becoming public domain. We share the cost and the risk, and we share the reward.

      Each and every one of us benefit every day by discoveries fellow humans have made dating back to the discovery of flint spearheads and controlling fire. Can you imagine where the human species would be if the first people to hammer on flint rocks made a trade secret of their discoveries?

      We'd probably be extinct.

      I think I can be sort-of ok with patents and copyright on things that are pure luxuries. But when your life expectancy is beholden to someone who can charge you literally whatever they want, we have a serious problem.

      Look, if it costs others many hours of labor to extend your life by one hour, then certainly a very high price for that extended health is justified. But when the cost of your life-saving medicine comes from nothing more than someone holding a secret, we have SERIOUS problems.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    11. Re:Yah, really? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The cost of life-saving medicines comes from the fact that to know that they are life saving medicines you need to have thousands of people take the pills for a year or two and give them a barrage of tests to see if they get better, or for that matter worse. Oh, and you have to do that on dozens of experimental compounds to find one that works, because most don't. Oh, and you have to bribe, err compensate, the doctors for all those patients or they won't even mention to them that the experimental treatment is available - that's where most of the money goes.

      There really aren't any secrets involved, or at least there aren't supposed to be for the compounds that actually make it onto the market. Things are secret before they're sold, but little is secret after. They're just patented.

      Very little of the cost comes from "pure research."

      A software analogy - view what the pharmaceutical companies do like software QA for something like an aircraft. QA is boring, and doesn't generate ANY neat features. It adds fairly little to the software at all, except for the one thing that matters most - assurance that it works. No company brags about its QA team, but if you're making something like an aircraft you can bet that it is a HUGE source of expense, because if it isn't then your legal bills will be even more expensive. That's why a GPS for your car costs $100, and a GPS for a plane costs $5000. If your GPS malfunctions while driving through fog you get frustrated and bang the dashboard. If your GPS malfunctions while you're landing a plane in fog you crash into a building.

      That said, there is no reason you couldn't do full drug development funded by taxes. Just have the government obtain the patents, do end-to-end development, and once the compound is demonstrated to be safe license it out for free to domestic manufacturers, or to those in countries that reciprocate, or for local use only in countries that are poor - this encourages other nations to do likewise. If it makes sense you could even outsource the work to existing pharmaceutical companies - but no IP rights get transferred, just fee for service. That is a win/win - companies can use this work to level their workloads at no risk.

      Some people say government R&D won't work, and if it doesn't nothing is lost but some tax dollars, because private industry is still left intact. If it does work, then private industry has to demonstrate value above the new cheap drugs for insurers to pay for them. The costs of government R&D can be compared to the costs of just having the government provide assistance for buying pills from private companies and that will either justify expansion or reduction of the program. With the two models in competition everybody wins.

      People complain about the cost of drugs, but I think that in truth not a great deal can be done about the cost of drugs (other than breakthrough advances, which do come, but it really tends to be a wash as finding better and better treatments is more expensive). I think the real issue though isn't the cost, but who pays for it. The problem with just using patents to recover costs through pill pricing is that it is very regressive. The main fixes for that are some kind of financial assistance program, and the public sector R&D model. Both have pros and cons, and that's why I'd like to see both tried out and compared in practice. Let's not argue rhetoric - let's see how they work. It isn't like we're not spending tens of billions of dollars on this stuff already. If spending a few billion dollars has the potential to fix the whole drug cost crisis let's do it - and even if it doesn't work out chances are we'll at least get some real science accomplished for that money.

  13. Lot of butt-hurt slashdotters here tonight by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2

    I for one welcome our nearly infinite sea-faring microbial overlords.

  14. Re:Industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Leaving aside that you are regurgitating stupidity right now, there is a certain fraction of humanoid life on this planet motivated by social responsibility. We call these organisms "humans".

  15. Re:Industry? by gagol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cause outside the US most people are covered by a good public health care program?

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  16. Re:Industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Why would anyone in industry develop anything new when government will be taking the credit and the profits?

    Yea, it was the gubrmment that caused the sub-prime mortgage melt-down ..

  17. Craig Venter also did this 2003-2006: GOSE by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 4, Informative
    Craig Venter also did this in the not-so-distant past after working on the Human Genome Project. It was called the Global Ocean Sampling Expedition (GOSE) which was an ocean exploration genome project.

    GOSE also aimed to trawl the bio-diversity of marine life in order to perform metagenomics analysis and find out about the diversity of marine genetic material. All of the data was put into UC-San-Diego's division of Cal-I-T2 (a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_for_Telecommunications_and_Information_Technology>California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology

  18. just the genetic sequences ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and not the bacteria (or other marine organisms etc.) theirselves are of interest.

    While some people point out the right problems (IP, patents, etc.) others seem to think that the researchers suggest '(over)fishing' the bacteria.
    Nope, they're only interesting as a source of yet unknown enzymes.
    But this is done everywhere, metagenomics (collecting 'just' DNA from soil/marine/etc. samples) is a new approach to make use of mother nature's diversity.
    (The cool thing about this approach is, while it's generally impossible to cultivate most of these organisms, as their habitat and environment are rather unknown, it's rather easy to "boil everything up" and sequence any remaining DNA. This approach is just getting possible by better possibilites in sequencing and bioinformatics)

    Having heard a lecture on the subject recently, I can tell you that these approaches are especially great as they rather quickly deliver working results:
    Imagine you wanted to perform a certain reaction by biotechnological means. There might be enzymes which do something similar, but not quite right - then it's nice if you can look for 'similars' in a large database and hopefully find one which better suits your means.
    For example could a marine micro organism from arctic regions contain enzymes especially optimized for colder temperatures.
    Imagine one of these in your laundry detergent, allowing even lower temperatures in the washing machine, saving energy and CO2 ... there you go, biotech saves the planet ;)

    From what I know, these JC Venter metagenomic sequences from marine samples are just deposited in public databases, and not yet patented. How could they? Without any further analysis or use, one can hardly file a patent.

  19. Re:Industry? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe because it goes the other way in reality: the government funds the basic research, and then gives to private industries, often for next to nothing, who then sell it if it's profitable. Example: taxol.

    Look at it this way: most of the bragging about government achievements is done by politicians who signed off on it telling you why they should be re-elected or elected to higher offices. Big pharma spends way more on taking credit for medical breakthroughs (or just as often, trying to tell you something that's just repackaging is actually a medical breakthrough.) Who do you think gets credit in that tug of war? It's not the government-funded scientists either way.

  20. Would you kindly... by lourd_baltimore · · Score: 2

    Investigate the regenerative properties of some sea slugs?

  21. Re:Hooray! Let's patent the SHIT out of the oceans by Biotech_is_Godzilla · · Score: 1

    Interesting you should say that. Cos (from TFA) one of the people sampling bacteria from around the coastlines of the US and South America is Craig Venter, the bloke who led the effort to sequence and privatise the human genome. So yeah, at least one person IS trying to do exactly that.

  22. "An incredible resource!" a depressing statement by LostMonk · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one finds the last statement "This is an incredible resource!" depressing?! Is everything always measured by how it can be of use and profit us people? I firmly believe that before long the only organisms left on earth will be the ones humans couldn't find ANY use for -- and the list does not include other humans.

  23. Re:"An incredible resource!" a depressing statemen by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    You probably are being as how the by definition survival of the fittest means you must be fit to survive. If the predominte organism on the planet finds another organism is useful to them they will do anything they can do make sure it's competitors do not survive. Your firm belief has no real basis in reality.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  24. Mary Mary Quite Contrary ANOTHER FAIL by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    As usual, the scientists FAIL to point out that the overwhelming majority of these 'tiny marine wonders' are of no practical use whatsoever. They swim around doing worthless and pointless things, they are comprised of useless and ridiculous materials you could find anywhere. Their genetic code, though voluminous and subtle, lacks any hint of cohesive plot interest and character development and reading it is a real waste of time. As usual we are supposed to imagine some cornucopia of miracle medicines emanating from these creatures -- prescription bottles full of wonder drugs just bobbing to the surface, a Gift From Neptune To You. Ha ha pharma brochure crap. Because they're small and cute and overlooked and your attention is being drawn to them it's supposed to be wonderful, but let me tell you almost 100% of what these creatures produce is useless sludge and they're too stupid to even care how dumb they are.

    I treasure my beloved planet, every nook and cranny hold a new mystery at which to gawk and squawk.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  25. You may think this is a good idea but by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    It's all fun and games until you start trying to harvest Cthulhu. Then what?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  26. DMCA by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    In other news, Poseidon has just decreed the Digital Marine Copyright Act, which expressly forbids oceanic IP theft and DNA reverse engineering by land dwellers.

  27. You guys are falling for the buzz by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Some tiny startup is planning to go hunting for sugar daddy venture capital. They have hired some PR firm to plant fluff pieces to create a buzz. Probably the same firm that cleaned up on "treasure trove of genetic goodies in the rain forest" crowd. They never change the modus operandi. What worked once will always work again.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  28. Not genes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that's exactly what biotech companies do right now to develop new RNAi libraries. microRNAs are a lot shorter than protein-coding genes, so they generate a big library of random short sequences, then see what they do in target organisms.

    Of course, the lab is always much smaller than the ocean, and the project schedule is always much shorter than geologic time, so there's good reason to look at what nature has already randomly thrown together instead.

  29. We can fix that.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... lets leak more Radioactive waste and other garbage into the oceans....while we continue to deforest rain forest... Gotta love Capitalism extremism .....

    There is another option.... See article starting on page 73 http://iamb.net/IJMB/journal/IJMB_Vol_3_1.pdf

    Simply put... brain/mind change is required for us to not destroy ourselves.

    Old dogs can learn new tricks...

  30. Re:Industry? by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And who paid to figure out if taxol worked and was safe? And how much did that cost? And how many other compounds did that company pay for clinical trials on which didn't pan out? The profits for taxol had to cover all of that.

    Taxol is a rare example of when government research actually led to a useful drug. Most compounds discovered in government labs turn out to not work, but of course you don't spend $5/pill for the products that don't work, so you're less likely to complain about those. The companies who develop them certainly spend money on them though.

    I'm all for having some end-to-end government R&D with the resulting compounds freely licensed to manufacturers in any country that reciprocates, but don't think that it will be any less expensive in the end then what we're paying for pills today. The main difference would be that the costs are borne by taxpayers rather than patients, which has the benefit of being more progressive.

    Government does some of the most important drug research there is. However, it also turns out to be some of the least expensive. There are still tons of expenses to be recouped once compounds are licensed or developed by a pharmaceutical company - and somebody has to pay for them. Most drugs lose money, and a few drugs make TONS of money. The industry has been pretty stagnant for a decade, so you can't just look at the one side of things.

  31. your biome increases year genes a hundredfold by peter303 · · Score: 1

    90% of the cells in your body are alien bacteria from more than a thousand species. These do some essential functions like create vitamins and nutrients were cannot ourselves.

  32. Rain Forest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See. Who needs those filthy rain forests when we have the ocean.

  33. Awesome by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    "Scientists discover a treasure trove of ocean life that could find cures for cancer and .... ah shit too late, we destroyed it already".

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.