Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Trial of Genetically Modified Wheat Ends In Disappointment
sciencehabit writes: A controversial GM wheat trial has failed after more than £2 million of public money was spent protecting it from GM opponents. Researchers had hoped that the wheat modified to produce a warning pheromone would keep aphids away and attract their natural enemies, reducing the need for insecticides. Despite showing promise in the laboratory, the field trial failed to show any effect. “If you make a transgenic plant that produces that alarm continuously, it’s not going to work,” ecologist Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands says. “You have a plant crying wolf all the time, and the bugs won’t listen to it any longer.”
You are wrong on the law. Isolating or identifying genes is not patentable, at least after Myriad: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Assn_for_Molecular_Pathology_v_Myriad_Genetics_Inc_No_12398_2013_
Even if you isolate a gene and use that gene to splice into another creature/plant, it's obvious to a person of skill in the art once isolated that splicing this gene will lead to expression of certain effects. To that extent it is not patentable.
Now, you might argue that the wheat failed in the above instance, so it involves experimentation. Yes the wheat failed, but not because of gene expression, but because of how the natural predators found out they were being gamed. Had nothing to do with producing the pheromones, which worked as anticipated. So, not patentable anyways.
The only trouble is proponents of GMO's have too much money and will continue to peddle, oh only isolation is not patentable, we can work around that using patent language. Look at Alice from the supreme court, where they decry the use work around language to get around judgements.
I am sorry, I have no love lost for GMO's and the companies that peddle them. They are evil as they get. They sue farmers. They even allege, if its 90% GMO crop, they own the entire bunch. You only have to look at monoculture issues like cavendish bananas to see that we could have human mass extinction, because of GMO crops and monoculture.
If you get a 20 year patent on GMO's. Unlicensed folks cannot use these plants to create other plant varieties, i.e., selective breeding. So, you are encouraging monoculture. If there is a natural predator which takes a liking to a GMO, all of the crop across the world will be wiped out in a matter of years. So, we will at best lose that one crop. Imagine if that happens to corn or wheat? 90% of the products on our supermarket shelf will disappear.
Patents on GMO's are horrible. Plant variety protection act thought of these difficulties and issues and balanced the rights of framers and the dangers of monoculture. But Monsanto had enough money to pull of the Bowman v. Monsanto win. None of these monoculture issues were highlighted in the case. Sad really.
Just so we are clear. I don't have a problem with GMO's. I have a problem with patents on GMOs and monoculture because of patent rights for 20 years. Let me give you a hint. A GMO crop won't change all that much for 20 years, and is sold as standardized seed. But the natural pathogens evolve at a frightening pace for those 20 years. It's a problem waiting to happen. PVP on the other hand gives crops a fighting chance, when farmers breed them.