Slashdot Mirror
WHO: Intellectual Property Claims Hindering Research On Deadly Novel Coronavirus
New submitter kwyjibo87 writes "The World Health Organization (WHO) publicly expressed dismay yesterday concerning news that intellectual property claims were hindering research on a deadly new emerging virus. Novel coronavirus (nCoV), a member of the same viral genus as the causative agent of SARS, has claimed the lives of 22 people (out of 44 reported infected) and left both researchers and health officials scrambling to develop effective diagnostic tests in addition to possible medications and vaccines against nCoV. Now, however, claims of intellectual property on the new virus are hindering research on nCoV according to the WHO, delaying advancements on tools to prevent further spread of the infection. Stories of intellectual property rights in science hindering advancements in research, particularly in clinical applications, are nothing new; the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the validity of patents on the BRCA1/2 genes and has yet to issue a decision. The issue of sharing scientific information in order to promote faster research on emerging pathogens is not limited to intellectual property — a recent article in the journal Nature highlighted a case where Chinese researchers risked having their research scooped after uploading viral sequences to a public database designed aid global scientific collaboration."
You freeloaders should be ashamed. It takes a lot of money to do that kind of research, and all these poor, defenseless companies are doing is protecting their investment by patenting the genes they discovered so if and when they choose to further develop it, they will make a reasonable perfectly reasonable 3000% profit on every pill sold.
Not only that, but I think you're all forgetting a very important point here: This virus kills quickly, and any treatment would only last a few days. Where's the profit in that? Sure, it'll kill you, but you as a patient are worth far less than the guy with the limp dick and a few extra bucks to eat pills to make him hard again.
If you want the situation to change, you need to get sick with diseases that are treatable but long-term. We're simply not interested in short-term illness, regardless of whether it kills you or not. Any cures or treatments for a short-term illness are purely accidental and you should be thankful we even bothered to develop it and market it! Ungrateful poor people... jeez. Why can't you all just dry up and die?
Yours Truly,
Big Pharma
P.S. I know you're taking Ritalin your friend gave you to do better on the finals. Contact me privately and I can hook you up with a doctor of questionable repute who will give you your very own legal script. Remember: Unless it comes from Big Pharma, it's a Bad Drug(tm).
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Fine, you knuckleheads want to claim ownership? How about some wrongful death suits?
I thought patents did not prevent research that uses the patented material.
At any rate, allowing patents on discoveries (vs. inventions) is just stupid.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
WHO==U.N.==SOCIALISM==COMMUNISM
Sure, maybe IP is *interfering* with scientific research in this case, but so what? If you take down the IP and interfering with corporations maximizing their profit, no one will be motivated to do anything. We'll all just loll around , (if they're people like me) staring at our navel disinterested in the world (if they're people like me) ....We'll be like Old Sick Europe . Then where will ALL of science be? Do you think people are motivated by the mere chance to relieve human suffering ? Do my whores fuck me because they love me???? We need REAL motivation !!!!!
What's your value system here? Is science for the betterment of mankind , to save human lives and advance the general welfare of people or is its primary purpose to make money for people with money so they'll go on doing science ?
COIMMUNIST! I SMELL A COMMUNIST!!!!
If the IP system is pared back, then all progress will cease.
In the western world we tend to perceive corruption as simple bribery. In my opinion, this thinking is way to narrow - but it keeps us in a kind of comfort zone, that in western world we have much less corruption than anywhere else. BUT if we add regulatory capture and start measuring corruption (simple bribery plus regulatory capture) in terms of human costs, world starts to look totally different. Broken intellectual property law - in this case hindering efforts to fight off a (potentially) deadly virus - is one of many examples of this. I'd rather call it legalized corruption than involve in debating rights and wrongs of this particular (narrow) issue. The same with patented cancer genes, software patents, financial institutions being out of control, monsanto force-feeding us with their toxic crap, legalized tax evasion etc. All those things are legal! Yet until we won't recognize this as ("legalized") corruption, these things won't be solved as root cause of all of this (regulatory capture) will still be there. It will cost us money, health and ultimately lives until we recognize that western countries - especially US - are propably the most corrupt ones in the world just because of sheer scale of this "legalized" corruption and its effects in terms of human costs. If you include all those banana republics we (western countries) imposed corrupt broken regimes just to steal their wealth, the whole picture looks even more grim. Stop debating rights and wrongs of narrow issues - it plays well to the hand of our corrupt corporate overlords. Get up and start fighting corruption in all its forms, including "legalized" one.
I know Slashdot is a US centric site but please remember that there are many non-native-US-English speakers reading it as well. I'm a native English speaker but I don't know what "scooped" means in the context of TFS.
The term scooped means "first one to get the credit for a discovery". It's usually used in the context of journalism, but the term still works in this case.
It's just like when French scientists first discovered the HIV virus (or so they claim). They mailed their blood samples to American scientists so the American scientists could confirm their findings and replicate their results, but the exact same American scientists who received those samples and the methodology the French scientists used, just used the same samples and ended up publishing the same results -- claiming the original discovery for themselves (at least, that's the story being told from the French side).
It's not just a question of ownership, although that's a part of it too, it's also a question of who gets the original credit (or shared credit) for the discovery (since that also determines who ends up getting mountains of public funding and/or royalties). And even public institutions are capable of stealing credit even if there are no patents/royalties involved, since reputation and public funding are just as important to them (as profits are to a private corporation).
If I own a bull, and this bull gets loose in a china shop, I'm liable. Why should intellectual property be any different?
If you own a gene, and a virus is using that gene to kill people, well, it's your duty to stop that virus doing what it's doing, and if you don't, expect to pay damages!
(But somehow I don't think the champions of intellectual property want the property metaphor to extend that far.)
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Then I think they should be charged with 22 cases of murder. It might not be murder 1, but manslaughter.
If you want to 'own' this virus, you get to 'own' the consequences. Corporations are people. Some places have the death penalty for people who commit crimes.
They are murderers.
Hey, if you can equate copyright infringement to theft, you can draw the same comparison between willfully withholding information and murder.
A modest suggestion: if the virus which is of your property kills someone you go to jail. Discounts granted if you own only a few genes. Let's see how long intellectual property lasts once it faces responsibility.
None of that is necessary. Just broaden the research exemption, which has been proposed many times.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1124465
http://www.brinkshofer.com/resource_center/85-the-hatch-waxman-act-research-exempt-from-patent-infringement