Actually, sorry, previous reply was incorrect - I did in fact have a citation:
Memish, in an interview with ScienceInsider yesterday, says that he had not seen the MTA himself. "I spoke to many scientists that said they were not willing to take the virus because the MTA was too restrictive," Memish says, but he did not give specific examples. "I made my comments on this assumption," he says. But Memish says that the issue has not impeded research in Saudi Arabia itself, where most cases of the virus have been found.
Memish says that his main gripe is with the fact that Zaki sent a virus sample taken from a patient in Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam in the first place and that Erasmus MC has been able to file for patents as a result. "Samples were shipped outside of the country without the knowledge or permission of the Ministry of Health and I cannot believe that any country on this planet would allow this to happen," Memish says. Zaki says that he gave a sample from the same patient to the Saudi Ministry of Health first. "They tested for swine flu and did not continue," he told ScienceInsider yesterday. Only then did he reach out to Fouchier.
all parties agree that the virus was originally isolated in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the real question behind the discussions is whether Saudi Arabia should benefit in some way from whatever comes out of research on the virus
It's refreshing to see that Science magazine actually did some genuine reporting.
the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak.
I repeat: they have not provided a shred of proof for this allegation. Based on everything else I've read, the Saudis probably have grounds to have the patent overturned on the basis that Erasmus obtained the material illegally, and as a national government, they can do pretty much anything they want if there is a genuine public health emergency. Everything points to the Saudis being unhappy that a) the research is now out of their control (and remember, this is a government that really, really likes to control everything that happens inside its borders, unusually so by modern standards), and b) someone else might make money off it. But complaining about this to the WHO probably wouldn't get as much sympathy as if they claim that the Dutch IP claim is preventing a cure.
After which I can't see how anyone can claim that this MTA doesn't slow down research.
But an MTA of some sort is totally standard practice - I know because I've worked in biomedical research labs - and absolutely essential when dealing with samples of a lethal virus. Even if the MTA did not specify any limitations on commercial use, it would still slow down the transfer of viral material. Any time there's an issue of legal liability the lawyers will get involved. It's not as simple as throwing a sample into a FedEx pouch and sending it off.
Think about the fact that producing and selling a vaccine is a "commercial purpose". Pharmaceutical companies do not operate as charities.
Okay, so hypothetically, if a pharma company wants to obtain the samples and intends to profit from them, why shouldn't they have to sign an agreement like this? If they're unhappy, they can always ask the Saudi government instead. No one is forcing them to go to Erasmus, except that the Saudis seem remarkably reluctant to cede any control.
It's an assumption, but an entirely reasonable assumption under the circumstances. Conversely, the people complaining about this haven't pointed to a single instance where the Dutch university has actually held up research for a cure, which is what this article is claiming. MTAs are completely standard and it would be absolutely insane to instantly mail out samples of a lethal virus without some sort of legal agreement.
Drosten, who has developed a diagnostic test using the virus from Erasmus MC, says that "anyone can use [the virus] for free." "What really shocks me is that the WHO seems to be buying into" the complaints, he says.
Memish says that the issue has not impeded research in Saudi Arabia itself, where most cases of the virus have been found.
Memish says that his main gripe is with the fact that Zaki sent a virus sample taken from a patient in Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam in the first place and that Erasmus MC has been able to file for patents as a result. "Samples were shipped outside of the country without the knowledge or permission of the Ministry of Health and I cannot believe that any country on this planet would allow this to happen," Memish says. Zaki says that he gave a sample from the same patient to the Saudi Ministry of Health first. "They tested for swine flu and did not continue," he told ScienceInsider yesterday. Only then did he reach out to Fouchier.
This lab is deciding who can develop a treatment, and what cut of it the Dutch lab will get. Is that your idea of a free market? They're controlling access to a virus
No, they're not. For fuck's sake, can't any of you read the goddamn article? (Slashdot editors included.)
They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment.
But because there isn't actually a patent on any of this, there is nothing that prevents anyone else from doing the sequencing themselves. This isn't rocket science - in fact it is trivial for any reasonably well-equipped biomedical research institution. Saudi Arabia is only unhappy because they want to retain exclusive rights, which of course is quite legal under international law, but if they actually cared about developing a cure, they'd already have their own sequence.
They (Erasmus University) aren't - read the article. All they're saying is, "if you want us to send you our data, you need to agree not to commercialize it without us, and you need to release us from legal liability." They're not claiming rights to the virus at all, only their own analysis. There is nothing preventing Saudi Arabia from performing their own analysis independently and completely ignoring the Dutch. In fact, what's really going on here is that Saudi Arabia wants to hold on to any intellectual property rights deriving from the virus, and they're concerned that the Dutch may fuck that up. If people die as a result, the fault lies entirely with the Saudi government for dropping the ball.
The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.
This is at least an improvement over the previous article on the same subject, which didn't even identify which IP claims were causing problems. But I agree, there is some incredibly sloppy reporting going on here. I realize that the storyline of "evil Western profiteers kill people with patents" is very tempting for lazy journalists and activists, and there are genuine problems with the patenting of gene sequences, but that's not even what's going on here. This is purely a case of bureaucratic infighting and ass-covering, and the article couldn't point to a single instance where Erasmus University actually prevented anyone from researching towards a cure.
Either they must actually control spending, or they must suck down federal dollars or be selling some public good to make up the difference.
In partial defense of Texas, it is one of the few "red states" that actually contributes more in federal taxes than it takes in federal spending (like California and the majority of "blue states"). It may be a pain in the ass, and it may have inflicted the worst president of my lifetime on the country, but at least it's pulling its weight, economically speaking.
So, in Texas, police still can arrest you for, in the privacy of your own home, consensually sticking your dick in places that are considered perfectly normal in most developed countries
Actually, they can't do this any more, thanks to the US Supreme Court. Last time I checked, though, the state GOP still endorses such laws in their official platform. But hey, at least gay people can carry shotguns in public - that's real freedom, not the phony faggoty liberal kind of freedom!
the majority of Texans value freedom and values over a strong central government and political correctness
This is the state that defended its law criminalizing sodomy to the Supreme Court in 2003, and whose GOP still supports the (now unconstitutional) law. Which means that a majority of Texans are happy to jettison freedom as soon as it conflicts with their (religious) values.
I'm wondering if a planet like Earth would be capable of developing and sustaining life without a sun, let's say 200 meters or so below the surface.
There is actually a huge amount of biomass beneath the seabed - all anaerobic prokaryotic microbes, as far I know. Deep sea volcanic vents are another major ecosystem. So it may be theoretically possible to develop terrestrial life without a sun (and certainly possible without direct light), but liquid water is still an absolute requirement, and geothermal heating is probably very important too.
this is only Slashdot. It is not a NASA (or some other space agency) forum. It is not a gathering place for the great minds of science, of the internet or even of basement dwellers.
Oh, I know that, it's just that I love a good intense scientific discussion, and there are a reasonable number of people who read Slashdot who have actually thought seriously about the subject, even if only for their own amusement. So it's still a little depressing to see so much cluelessness on display. After all, some of these people surely vote...
there were thousands of reliable documented UFO sightings covered up by the US government with such ridiculous explanations as 'moonlight reflecting off of swamp gas'
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You're testing supersonic spy planes in an era where our largest adversary had successfully stolen nuclear weapons research from us, and you're trying to stop the local yokels from asking too many questions about the unimaginably fast, jet-black craft that keep whooshing overhead. What do you tell them that will shut them up, without saying "we're testing top-secret spy planes that will overfly the Soviet Union"?
If extraterrestrials really did visit Earth as often (and for as long) as you claim, btw, there would be actual hard evidence. There is none. The simplest explanation is that a) people freak out when confronted with rapid technological change, and b) the human brain is a superb pattern-finding machine - so good that it often finds patterns where none exist. And if we're going to treat ancient Hindu scrolls as reliable documentary evidence, why not just take the Book of Genesis at face value too, and have the government stop funding evolution research? (Or medical research, for that matter - clearly divine intervention can cure disease more effectively than modern medicine.)
Every time Slashdot posts a story about the search for extraterrestrial life, at least a half-dozen scientifically illiterate people complain (often quite stridently) that NASA (or whoever) is too narrow-minded because they're only looking at signs of terrestrial-like (carbon-based, oxygen-metabolizing) life. And every comment of this sort gets at least another half-dozen replies, from people who actually know at least a little bit of science, explaining, very patiently, that we have no idea what other forms of life might look like, chemically speaking, no way of knowing if such life forms exist, and thus no way of detecting their presence. It's so predictable, and so inane. This is one of the most fascinating open questions in modern science, but these threads simply get clogged up by idiots upset that NASA hasn't considered their ill-informed speculation.
No where in any of this is there actually a single reference to a single IP, person, or company that is interfering with research.
I agree, it is entirely unclear from the article whether any IP claims have been put forth, or if this is some kind of pre-emptive action. I think gene patents are truly evil, and pharma companies can be truly sleazy at times, but I'd like to see some actual evidence before pointing fingers in this case.
At least we have "classic liberal" now returning to mean "pro- individual liberty".
Yeah, but I've also seen plenty of people claim this mantle for themselves while espousing completely contradictory positions, e.g. supporting the criminalization of sodomy. As is too often the case, they support individual liberty only so far as it aligns with their own lifestyle and economic choices. (This too is not just a conservative failing, but they tend to be the ones talking the loudest about the broad concepts of "freedom" and "individual liberty". Progressives at least tend to avoid such generalities in favor of "social justice".)
Away from politics, most people would associate "slow to do anything crazy" with "conservative".
Well, sure, but that's why I qualified my statement - within the bounds of US politics, self-proclaimed "conservatives" tend to leap at the chance to do something radical and crazy. (And of course self-proclaimed "liberals" are often anything but, although the resurrection of the term "progressive" has helped distinguish the more dogmatic lefty types from the rest of us.)
If you have a big enough ego, everything you don't understand must be unimportant junk.
I think people read too much into the use of the word "junk", and attribute a pejorative meaning that wasn't necessarily intended. The best explanation I've seen (can't remember the source, sorry) was something along the lines of "junk is the stuff I keep in my attic; stuff I throw out is garbage." Biologists are in fact aware that non-coding parts of the genome can be essential, and there was never any presumption that anything we didn't understand was unimportant - however, how much of the non-coding DNA is genuinely necessary is an open question, and it's hard to find an obvious use for most of it. Clearly some complex organisms get along fine without it, so it's not unreasonable to view junk DNA primarily as a side effect of millions of years of evolution.
I about coughed in my coffee when he praised a Bush for making the world safer. Is this guy a conservative?
The elder Bush gets quite a bit of praise from present-day liberals for his foreign policy. (Even my brother, who is ideologically closer to the Green Party than the Democrats, agreed with me that Bush was one of the best presidents of his lifetime.) Part of this is just nostalgia influenced by the experience of his son's foreign policy, but even from an unbiased standpoint Bush I did very well. The part that gets the most credit isn't the Persian Gulf War, but the fact that the Cold War sputtered to a halt without anything blowing up. I've always thought that Bush's chief accomplishment here was having the good sense not to do anything crazy (rather than any overt acts), but in my opinion that's one of the most underrated qualities a president can have. It has nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative" in the sense these words are used in American political discourse.
I believe it's Peter Vollhardt, a chemistry professor at UC Berkeley (which has one of the best chemistry departments anywhere). He actually drove the thing to work - apparently he paid the campus a pile of money for a rare on-campus parking spot next to the chemistry complex.
You're projecting an awful lot of opinions that I never stated, implicitly or explicitly. I do not disapprove of anything that Corning did, nor do I object to its intentions. I am merely trying to make a distinction between basic research, applied research, and product development. All are essential, but only the latter two make money. I don't want to get sucked into a religious argument about where the money should or should not come from, but that question is also irrelevant to the distinction. Basic research, no matter who pays the bills, is done with the understanding that it may not lead to anything commercializable. Therefore companies focus on applied research, and product development (which academic basic researchers tend to be lousy at). I don't expect them to do anything else, but someone still has to do the basic research.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep claiming this. Please provide a cite.
Actually, sorry, previous reply was incorrect - I did in fact have a citation:
It's refreshing to see that Science magazine actually did some genuine reporting.
On further reading, I retract this statement:
However, this stands:
the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak.
I repeat: they have not provided a shred of proof for this allegation. Based on everything else I've read, the Saudis probably have grounds to have the patent overturned on the basis that Erasmus obtained the material illegally, and as a national government, they can do pretty much anything they want if there is a genuine public health emergency. Everything points to the Saudis being unhappy that a) the research is now out of their control (and remember, this is a government that really, really likes to control everything that happens inside its borders, unusually so by modern standards), and b) someone else might make money off it. But complaining about this to the WHO probably wouldn't get as much sympathy as if they claim that the Dutch IP claim is preventing a cure.
After which I can't see how anyone can claim that this MTA doesn't slow down research.
But an MTA of some sort is totally standard practice - I know because I've worked in biomedical research labs - and absolutely essential when dealing with samples of a lethal virus. Even if the MTA did not specify any limitations on commercial use, it would still slow down the transfer of viral material. Any time there's an issue of legal liability the lawyers will get involved. It's not as simple as throwing a sample into a FedEx pouch and sending it off.
Think about the fact that producing and selling a vaccine is a "commercial purpose". Pharmaceutical companies do not operate as charities.
Okay, so hypothetically, if a pharma company wants to obtain the samples and intends to profit from them, why shouldn't they have to sign an agreement like this? If they're unhappy, they can always ask the Saudi government instead. No one is forcing them to go to Erasmus, except that the Saudis seem remarkably reluctant to cede any control.
You keep claiming this. Please provide a cite.
It's an assumption, but an entirely reasonable assumption under the circumstances. Conversely, the people complaining about this haven't pointed to a single instance where the Dutch university has actually held up research for a cure, which is what this article is claiming. MTAs are completely standard and it would be absolutely insane to instantly mail out samples of a lethal virus without some sort of legal agreement.
Here is a better source. Selected quotes:
This lab is deciding who can develop a treatment, and what cut of it the Dutch lab will get. Is that your idea of a free market? They're controlling access to a virus
No, they're not. For fuck's sake, can't any of you read the goddamn article? (Slashdot editors included.)
They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment.
But because there isn't actually a patent on any of this, there is nothing that prevents anyone else from doing the sequencing themselves. This isn't rocket science - in fact it is trivial for any reasonably well-equipped biomedical research institution. Saudi Arabia is only unhappy because they want to retain exclusive rights, which of course is quite legal under international law, but if they actually cared about developing a cure, they'd already have their own sequence.
If they're claiming the rights to the virus
They (Erasmus University) aren't - read the article. All they're saying is, "if you want us to send you our data, you need to agree not to commercialize it without us, and you need to release us from legal liability." They're not claiming rights to the virus at all, only their own analysis. There is nothing preventing Saudi Arabia from performing their own analysis independently and completely ignoring the Dutch. In fact, what's really going on here is that Saudi Arabia wants to hold on to any intellectual property rights deriving from the virus, and they're concerned that the Dutch may fuck that up. If people die as a result, the fault lies entirely with the Saudi government for dropping the ball.
The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.
This is at least an improvement over the previous article on the same subject, which didn't even identify which IP claims were causing problems. But I agree, there is some incredibly sloppy reporting going on here. I realize that the storyline of "evil Western profiteers kill people with patents" is very tempting for lazy journalists and activists, and there are genuine problems with the patenting of gene sequences, but that's not even what's going on here. This is purely a case of bureaucratic infighting and ass-covering, and the article couldn't point to a single instance where Erasmus University actually prevented anyone from researching towards a cure.
Either they must actually control spending, or they must suck down federal dollars or be selling some public good to make up the difference.
In partial defense of Texas, it is one of the few "red states" that actually contributes more in federal taxes than it takes in federal spending (like California and the majority of "blue states"). It may be a pain in the ass, and it may have inflicted the worst president of my lifetime on the country, but at least it's pulling its weight, economically speaking.
So, in Texas, police still can arrest you for, in the privacy of your own home, consensually sticking your dick in places that are considered perfectly normal in most developed countries
Actually, they can't do this any more, thanks to the US Supreme Court. Last time I checked, though, the state GOP still endorses such laws in their official platform. But hey, at least gay people can carry shotguns in public - that's real freedom, not the phony faggoty liberal kind of freedom!
the majority of Texans value freedom and values over a strong central government and political correctness
This is the state that defended its law criminalizing sodomy to the Supreme Court in 2003, and whose GOP still supports the (now unconstitutional) law. Which means that a majority of Texans are happy to jettison freedom as soon as it conflicts with their (religious) values.
I'm wondering if a planet like Earth would be capable of developing and sustaining life without a sun, let's say 200 meters or so below the surface.
There is actually a huge amount of biomass beneath the seabed - all anaerobic prokaryotic microbes, as far I know. Deep sea volcanic vents are another major ecosystem. So it may be theoretically possible to develop terrestrial life without a sun (and certainly possible without direct light), but liquid water is still an absolute requirement, and geothermal heating is probably very important too.
The USSR did not steal nuclear weapon technology from the USA.
Oh, really? (And that's hardly the only example.)
this is only Slashdot. It is not a NASA (or some other space agency) forum. It is not a gathering place for the great minds of science, of the internet or even of basement dwellers.
Oh, I know that, it's just that I love a good intense scientific discussion, and there are a reasonable number of people who read Slashdot who have actually thought seriously about the subject, even if only for their own amusement. So it's still a little depressing to see so much cluelessness on display. After all, some of these people surely vote...
there were thousands of reliable documented UFO sightings covered up by the US government with such ridiculous explanations as 'moonlight reflecting off of swamp gas'
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You're testing supersonic spy planes in an era where our largest adversary had successfully stolen nuclear weapons research from us, and you're trying to stop the local yokels from asking too many questions about the unimaginably fast, jet-black craft that keep whooshing overhead. What do you tell them that will shut them up, without saying "we're testing top-secret spy planes that will overfly the Soviet Union"?
If extraterrestrials really did visit Earth as often (and for as long) as you claim, btw, there would be actual hard evidence. There is none. The simplest explanation is that a) people freak out when confronted with rapid technological change, and b) the human brain is a superb pattern-finding machine - so good that it often finds patterns where none exist. And if we're going to treat ancient Hindu scrolls as reliable documentary evidence, why not just take the Book of Genesis at face value too, and have the government stop funding evolution research? (Or medical research, for that matter - clearly divine intervention can cure disease more effectively than modern medicine.)
Every time Slashdot posts a story about the search for extraterrestrial life, at least a half-dozen scientifically illiterate people complain (often quite stridently) that NASA (or whoever) is too narrow-minded because they're only looking at signs of terrestrial-like (carbon-based, oxygen-metabolizing) life. And every comment of this sort gets at least another half-dozen replies, from people who actually know at least a little bit of science, explaining, very patiently, that we have no idea what other forms of life might look like, chemically speaking, no way of knowing if such life forms exist, and thus no way of detecting their presence. It's so predictable, and so inane. This is one of the most fascinating open questions in modern science, but these threads simply get clogged up by idiots upset that NASA hasn't considered their ill-informed speculation.
No where in any of this is there actually a single reference to a single IP, person, or company that is interfering with research.
I agree, it is entirely unclear from the article whether any IP claims have been put forth, or if this is some kind of pre-emptive action. I think gene patents are truly evil, and pharma companies can be truly sleazy at times, but I'd like to see some actual evidence before pointing fingers in this case.
At least we have "classic liberal" now returning to mean "pro- individual liberty".
Yeah, but I've also seen plenty of people claim this mantle for themselves while espousing completely contradictory positions, e.g. supporting the criminalization of sodomy. As is too often the case, they support individual liberty only so far as it aligns with their own lifestyle and economic choices. (This too is not just a conservative failing, but they tend to be the ones talking the loudest about the broad concepts of "freedom" and "individual liberty". Progressives at least tend to avoid such generalities in favor of "social justice".)
Away from politics, most people would associate "slow to do anything crazy" with "conservative".
Well, sure, but that's why I qualified my statement - within the bounds of US politics, self-proclaimed "conservatives" tend to leap at the chance to do something radical and crazy. (And of course self-proclaimed "liberals" are often anything but, although the resurrection of the term "progressive" has helped distinguish the more dogmatic lefty types from the rest of us.)
If you have a big enough ego, everything you don't understand must be unimportant junk.
I think people read too much into the use of the word "junk", and attribute a pejorative meaning that wasn't necessarily intended. The best explanation I've seen (can't remember the source, sorry) was something along the lines of "junk is the stuff I keep in my attic; stuff I throw out is garbage." Biologists are in fact aware that non-coding parts of the genome can be essential, and there was never any presumption that anything we didn't understand was unimportant - however, how much of the non-coding DNA is genuinely necessary is an open question, and it's hard to find an obvious use for most of it. Clearly some complex organisms get along fine without it, so it's not unreasonable to view junk DNA primarily as a side effect of millions of years of evolution.
I about coughed in my coffee when he praised a Bush for making the world safer. Is this guy a conservative?
The elder Bush gets quite a bit of praise from present-day liberals for his foreign policy. (Even my brother, who is ideologically closer to the Green Party than the Democrats, agreed with me that Bush was one of the best presidents of his lifetime.) Part of this is just nostalgia influenced by the experience of his son's foreign policy, but even from an unbiased standpoint Bush I did very well. The part that gets the most credit isn't the Persian Gulf War, but the fact that the Cold War sputtered to a halt without anything blowing up. I've always thought that Bush's chief accomplishment here was having the good sense not to do anything crazy (rather than any overt acts), but in my opinion that's one of the most underrated qualities a president can have. It has nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative" in the sense these words are used in American political discourse.
I believe it's Peter Vollhardt, a chemistry professor at UC Berkeley (which has one of the best chemistry departments anywhere). He actually drove the thing to work - apparently he paid the campus a pile of money for a rare on-campus parking spot next to the chemistry complex.
You're projecting an awful lot of opinions that I never stated, implicitly or explicitly. I do not disapprove of anything that Corning did, nor do I object to its intentions. I am merely trying to make a distinction between basic research, applied research, and product development. All are essential, but only the latter two make money. I don't want to get sucked into a religious argument about where the money should or should not come from, but that question is also irrelevant to the distinction. Basic research, no matter who pays the bills, is done with the understanding that it may not lead to anything commercializable. Therefore companies focus on applied research, and product development (which academic basic researchers tend to be lousy at). I don't expect them to do anything else, but someone still has to do the basic research.