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.'"
We'll wipe out all ocean life before we can fully reap the benefits.
Why would anyone seek treatment for a non-fatal disease when doing so puts you in debt for decades.
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
What does "almost infinite" even mean?
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.
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
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.
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.
Yes! Just like the Internet! Down with the government!
We've used up all the fish. Now we can work on the smaller stuff!
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.
I for one welcome our nearly infinite sea-faring microbial overlords.
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".
Cause outside the US most people are covered by a good public health care program?
Tomorrow is another day...
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
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: ... there you go, biotech saves the planet ;)
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
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.
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.
Investigate the regenerative properties of some sea slugs?
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
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.