Slashdot Mirror


Nearly Half the Patents on Marine Genes Belong To Just One Company (smithsonianmag.com)

A creature as majestic as a whale, you might think, should have no owner. Yet it turns out that certain snippets of the DNA that makes a sperm whale a sperm whale are actually the subjects of patents -- meaning that private entities have exclusive rights to their use for research and development. From a report: The same goes for countless other marine species. And new research shows that a single German chemical company owns 47 percent of patented marine gene sequences. A just-published paper in Science Advances finds that 862 separate species of marine life have genetic patents associated with them. "It's everything from microorganisms to fish species," says lead author Robert Blasiak, a conservation researcher at the University of Stockholm who was shocked to find out how many genetic sequences in the ocean were patented. "Even iconic species" -- like plankton, manta rays, and yes, sperm whales. Of some 13,000 genetic sequences targeted by patents, nearly half are the intellectual property of a company called Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (BASF).

8 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How can you patent something you didn't create? Copy-pasted genetic sequences are just copy-pasted prior art libraries!

    CAPTCHA: "Lordship"

    1. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because lawyers and idiotic, corrupted and ignorant politicians. One would think you'd have to look really hard for a clearer case of "discoveries", which are not patentable, but ofc that goes out the window when there's sufficient money involved.

    2. Re:Prior art by Archtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the underlying legal principle is something like this:

      "You can patent anything that you can make money from".

      Because then you will have spare money to give to legislators, politicians, officials, judges, prosecutors, patent attorneys, etc.

      And that's the whole ecosystem right there.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  2. The Right to Breed by Martin+S. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why am I reminded of this:

    The Right to Read by Richard Stallman

    This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2).

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

  3. Re:What company is it? by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, it's not a spin-off. It is IG Farben itself. When seven german chemical companies in the 1920ies decided to form a trust, they did it by signing over all shares of six of them to the seventh, and the holder of the shares got shares of the seventh in return. The seventh company in question was the BASF (which is Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik), which after that renamed itself in IG Farben.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  4. Re:What company is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, but IG-Farben was taken apart 1950 by the West Allies: that's what I meant by "spin off". OTOH you're right in that BASF is one of the bigger turds coming out of that -- the other is Bayer, which now has Evil Monsanto embedded in its cytoplasma).

    To note that they got an especially friendly treatment after the war, due to their strong ties to Exxon (!) and DuPont.

    Spawn of the devil.

  5. Which is why can't be patented in the US by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented.

    Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that can be described in mathematical terms isn't patentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the
      incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that can be described in mathematical terms", saying "you can't patent math". That's not really true - you can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique load balancing across a world-class network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.

    1. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

      I must say, in this instance. The US got it right and the Germans got it wrong.

      I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).

      To patent a gene in nature seems a ridiculous concept to me.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch