Slashdot Mirror
You Don't 'Own' Your Own Genes
olePigeon (Wik) writes "Cornell University's New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases for which they might be at risk. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual 'genomic liberty.'"
Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!
Think of the children! No, really.
...but fortunately, I have complete legal ownership due to the grandfather clause.
"The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides. " ...
"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.
* Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Can I sue them when something goes wrong with "their" genes?
It's just a chemical. Like water.
OTOH, it's naturally occurring, so they should be able to patented either.
Patent chemical derivations? absolutely.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't each of those genes have prior art? In what way have these companies created a new and innovative device?
If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.
Have gnu, will travel.
So are we going to see cease and desist orders from these companies because we are infringing on their patents when we take a shit?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
How did all these patents get issued, when legally in the U.S., patents cannot be issued for products of nature?
Somebody is massively and badly f*cking up, somewhere.
If you don't like patents, you're free to create your own version of the human genome. Stop trying to regulate the market, you commie!
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I claim prior art! Well, my parents could, at least.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Can I send a cheek-swab to the US Copyright office and copyright my own genes?
So if you get sick with cancer, just sue the company that is the owner of the gene. Tell the courts they own the patent and you never asked for there products to be put into you. Make clear you only want those mutated cancer cells removed that they own.. Free cancer treatment.
"Humans don't "own" their own genes"
Can we repossess them from Soulskill and Cowboy Neal? :)
This is all fine humor and all. But I remember reading a science fiction story about a person who resembled a well-known movie star. That person was sent a "cease and desist", in essence told to get plastic surgery to quit looking the way he was born to. That's the first paragraph or two, the meat of the story was his response. Since I read the story decades ago, I've forgotten the rest, and only remembered the premise.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
so you are saying this will make RIAA lawsuits look reasonable in comparison.
...only outlaws will synthesize their own proteins.
Find a company which "owns" a gene that controls some specific disease, like a cancer. Now, everyone with that disease files a lawsuit against the patent holder. They own it, they should be liable for the damages it is causing by being released into the general population. By claiming a patent, this implies invention, therefore we can infer liability!
After a few multi-million dollar lawsuit awards, no one would want to "own" a gene. Problem solved.
How in the world this is even eligible for being patented escapes me. I know. This is the same rant that has been repeated over and over again here. Patents should be for inventions or things that people have created.
If I do a whole bunch of research and learn things that other people haven't learned about the sun, can I patent the bloody thing? How is patenting genes any different?
...lives on his back. The Gene Genie loves chimney stacks.
Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche to sue whoever they want for whatever reason.
Well, "basically" (the superfluous "basically" make the user look like an idiot by the way) anyone can sue for any reason whatsoever, and they do. My wife, who works for a silicon valley court system sees this all the time. The from high powered corp lawyer to the crazy cat lady living in a shopping cart. Corporations don't own lawsuits as you appear to be implying.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Hello? Michael Crichton touched on this in Next, years ago. Was he completely right? Yes.
I don't understand why everyone is all hyped up over genes like this. Genes are basically the cell's subroutines or code. I know countless questionable patents that have been made for software - why should genes be any different?
Bonus points for using "meat of the story".
Unless there is program to clone me and then take over my life, I really don't care who owns my "genes". I am sure there are people shaking with rage hearing about this, but get over it, its a non-issue for 99.9999% of the population. People just like to fight for something without caring about what its about other then "the injustice of it all".
Lastly, God owns our genes, so there.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
RIAA tried to sue Limewire for $75 trillion in damages. It's almost the same as $100 trillion. I don't see how it's more reasonable. http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html
The act of conception produces a baby that is considered to be unlicensed derivative work of companies in the biotech industry. The parents must either pay between $200 - $150,000 dollars for each infringement. If the parents cannot pay the fine, the corporations can gain legal guardianship of the child and either use the child for their own medical research purposes, or sell the child to a sweatshop and place a lien on the child's earnings for their lifetime until the debt is repaid.
I have always found it bit funny that they can patent a gene. Expecially when its gene that didnt even develop, nature did. Its similar to decompiling computer programs and then starting to patent parts of them that seems to do task X. After all thats what dna is, programs for cellural computer. Personally if anyone could claim any onwership of my genes, it would probably be my parents..
The extended middle finger.
When I saw the summary title I read it as, "You don't own your own games." I thought, "Great, THIS story again," before I noticed I read it wrong. Completely off topic, but I thought it was funny.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
And what do you base that on? do you have a logical argument?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If a corporation owns a gene or by extension, chromsome group, then that corporation is the only one able to treat that gene or chromosone with any therapy as it's been declared off limits to other corporations. So by having a single corporation able to treat a disease or defect, the individual becomes wholly dependant on a single, for profit entity. This single entity, answerable to nobody, has effectively made you it's property, and has the ability to treat or not treat you, at whatever price it pleases.
Great, 30 days to remove property or pay $9999/day
To anyone claiming "ownership", those with genetic disorders should give them XX days to remove their property or pay $XXXXX/day for "storage" fees... Now that's incentive for a cure.
... to any company or group that thinks it owns my genetic material.
You can patent what you like and pretend you have rights, but when it comes to me and what makes me *me* you can all fuck off. Don't like it? Tough. You can still fuck off.
I get enough bullshit about the invisible sky fairy that made everything without some overpaid prick in a lab coat trying to tell me I'm owned by some faceless twatcorp. Yes, I have strong feelings about this - how could you tell?
Michael Crichton had been talking about gene patents for years
read his book titled "Next"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel)
"Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche legal basis to win a summary judgment against whoever they want for whatever reason."
There - fixed that for the OP.
Yes, anybody can sue anybody for any reason, but not everybody has a 90% chance of winning such suits case after case, often without even warranting a trial. Add this to unfounded RIAA infringment claims, traffic tickets from private companies (camera installers and operators), and medical bills from any random physician that sneaks into a patient's hospital room without their knowlegde, consent, or prior relationship to perform "services" (doctrine of implied consent).
wow you think $75 trillion is almost $100 trillion
life must be pretty sweet if $25 trillion is considered small change
homosexual infatuation
If I don't own my own genes, then why would any other alleged owner be legally prohibited from taking them from me?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Since when are you afforded a patent on something which you did not at all design or create. Just because you have the expensive instruments to measure, decode, or decipher a substance which has already been created/designed should never give you the authority to "own" that object. This is utterly a FAIL for the research establishment. And now we need the Supreme court to tell us who is the actual owner. Another FAIL for civilization.
My cells divide all the time, I am therefore a walking sack of IP violations. Nice.
Considering a human may not own his own genes, the raw data that defines their human body's construction, how long before everyone receives a letter from a patent troll stating that they must pay a licencing fee if they wish to continue using their genes?
FTFY.
I sincerely hope they actually try to pull some shit like that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
How is it any less reasonable from Monsanto suing farmers for planting their own corn seed after it was contaminated by Monsanto engineered pollen from a neighboring farm?
And remember, RIAA relates only to copywritten material. Since gene patents would be essential to human life they would be much more valuable to each individual. Though the median income for an American family is less than $60k per year, medical costs for just one cancer patient can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if the chance, not the guarantee, of prolonging the life of one individual, perhaps by just a few months or maybe a couple of years, has a market value that pushes an entire family household into bankruptcy, then how should we value the genes that make life possible from craddle to grave? Factoring offspring into the equation changes everything. Since just one child can spawn an entire nation, this has to be considered when a patented gene is illegally "copied" through procreation. So again, if the market value of prolonging a life by a few months is worth as much as the lifetime earnings of a typical household, then the cost of lost revenue from unauthorized distribution of a patented gene into the gene pool could easily be worth $100 trillion, since such a figure would represent the GDP of a small nation compounded over the course of said nation's history - totally reasonable since it has already been established by sources as old as the book of Genesis that just one child can father an entire nation. In retrospect $100 trillion is a very generous settlement offer that a violator should consider carefully before going to trial.
Yes, but at another level you cannot patent in vivo genes as these are a product of nature.
The genes covered by these patents all go through a process where they are isolated. Since the genes in your body are the result of natural processes any such patent suit would have much less than a 90% chance of success.
Lastly, God owns our genes, so there.
Which god?
Why not purple unicorns?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
And remember, RIAA relates only to copywritten material.
Actually, RIAA has nothing to do with copywriters.
Ezekiel 23:20
The case: Moore v. Regents of the University of California
The decision: Patients do not have a right to their own body
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California
Chicago Tribune: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-18/features/9001140537_1_mo-cell-line-blood-cells-spleen
(The Trib article is a more human friendly version)
I also seem to recall (but cannot locate) another case in Texas where a man went in for a medical procedure, the doctor took samples of something from his body, and ended up with a patent. The patient had no knowledge this had occurred. Much later the patient had a family member in need of a transplant, he offered to donate, and the patent holder blocked him from making the donation on grounds of infringement. The family member died as a result. The courts upheld infringement over the cost of human life.
And you thought software patents were bad...
Let me guess the plot - Science gone mad?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Not this time.
This time it's Science gone crazy
I hope they really have claimed the entire genome, because patents don't last that long, so we'll all be free again in 20 years.
Meh, in less than 17 years, the knowledge that X does Y will be public.
Personally, I didn't map the fuckers out so I can't really be offended that someone that HAS mapped genetic data and suffered through the research to determine what they do gets payment for it for a patent term.
For what it is worth, I suspect there will be a lot more than 40,000 (isn't that number from TFA) unique rules hiding in DNA. In other words, 20 years from now, I still expect us to be making inroads and discoveries that deserve patent. Another few decades after that, if we survive that long, we'll have similar progress with nonhuman DNA, and another wave of patents with value either because our direct or indirect benefit from them (mods to human DNA or mods to critters, in other words).
Manage to patent an irrational number and then sue everyone because math shows that everyone have everything there if you dig enough. Then take down the patent system as even them are covered by your patent. And then we can live happily ever after.
Let me guess the plot - Science gone mad?
Here's the real lowdown, YOU are owned, the banksters say so, big pharma says so, the Queen's barristers say so, and now, the g-dless scientists say so. All that is needed is for organized religion to throw us back into a time where the dark ages would be like a walk through Disneyland.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.
From the Federal Register:
A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.
They didn't pay for the research and development. The human genome project produced the data which they then used to apply for patents.
This is generally the notion when talking about chemistry, but apparently biology is something entirely separate from chemistry.
All that's needed is for you to wake up and realize that when organized religion (Christianity, anyhow) says that you don't own yourself, but have had your freedom bought at a very high price, but now belong to Christ -- and therefore are not free to do as you wish, but need to bring it all to God in prayer... they actually are giving you true freedom.
Whereas when others say, "no, you'refre. To sell/destroy/ harm yourself, let me help you", they are enslaving and destroying you for their own profit.
Ä-- cept for the fact that the dark ages were far better than this so-called enlightened era of mass murder, human trafficking, torture-that-is-not-torture, unlimited power for the powerful without responsibility (corporatism)...
i'd argue with your post.
As it is, I agree with it 100%.
As long as it happens not by organized religion, but by the hand of God Himself (the task is too great for religion), that is all we need.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm
"Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
your surname isn't Bernanke by any chance?
Trying to cover just how much wrong you stuffed into that single sentence would be a task akin to cleaning the Agean Stables. That you say such a thing while you sit on your well-fed ass, in your warm home, taking access to all the 100% clean and safe water and food you could ever want for granted, wearing machine-woven cloth, sitting in front of a machine so incredible it would've been literally indistinguishable from magic 100 years ago (let alone 1000), leads to one of two conclusions:
Either you are a spoiled whinging twit posessed of an ignorance of history as stunning as your lack of perspective, or you are so stupid it's amazing that you remember how to breathe.
I found Michael Critchen's Next http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel) quite scary with respect to the lack of ownership it says people have of their genes.
It also has a very reasonable sounding solution at the end - to increase the rights of ownership of our genes up to the level of ownership we have over of a photograph of ourselves.
That doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Whew! I started to panic when I first read the headline as "You Don't 'Own' Your Own Games". That was quite the scare. OK, what's the next story?
For arguments sake, lets say I accept you parinoid rant as a facimile of the truth, WTF has it got to do with my post?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Prior Art! I existed before any of these patents; Sadly, quite a long time before.
Or it is blatant trolling
And its one step further toward insanity.
At least if you leave code alone (as in sleeping on a USB stick) nothing is going to ever happen to it.
Even if code duplication comes virtually for free, at least some level of intent is necessary for duplicated to happen.
With llife form, it's much worse. Life's own purpose is to make copies of it self and try to survive.
Leave a plant or an animal alone and they'll start repoducing on their own.
Intellectual Property in the realm of biology goes against the very principle of biology. You need to suppress a process which is happening naturally. You have to fight against nature itself to prevent unauthorized duplicate.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If this is allowed to continue I say fuck the rules, and buy as many guns as you can afford.
For arguments sake, lets say I accept you parinoid rant as a facimile of the truth, WTF has it got to do with my post?
The only people who own your genes are your heredity lineage, all others are nothing more than claim jumpers. Plenty of grief comes from those that claim G-d is on my side. Just because someone has more money, power, ability to "make things happen" doesn't necessarily mean they have a right to your DNA. As for my paranoid rant, think about the mark of the beast; everyone will have it and have it willingly. Your Iphone, android or whatever "smart" phone you hang onto dear life for, even to the pointy of going onto the internet to type where's my IPhone? These smart phones have non removable batteries so it cannot be disabled by taking the battery out. People with with these smart phones would rather text their friends rather than hanging up their phones, turning around, and talk to the person they are texting. Who owns whom?
Most people blindly accept the EULA without reading it. Who owns whom? You suck up the crap from newspapers, television, radio, Twitter OMG! WHO OWNS WHOM?
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
The isolated genes do not exist in nature, and never have. "Products of nature" is not read so broadly as to include any combination of hydrogen, carbon, or other elements, regardless of what isolation or manipulation you perform on them, or no machine would ever be patentable either, by definition.
Using this logic, wouldn't trans-uranic elements also be patentable, since they are all unstable and thus not found in nature? To my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested these elements could possibly be patented, but I don't see why not, given the similarity of the circumstances.
Personally, of course, I believe it's a travesty to suggest that any of this stuff is patentable. To state that these genetic sequences are "not found in nature" is insane, it's a bunch of lawyers bending the English language to the breaking point. Lawyers are good at that kind of thing, apparently.
I thought he was sweet
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.