Indeed. The inconsistency becomes more apparent if you abstract the sentence to "X cannot be free unless it is controlled by Y". She is free to defend the control by copyright holders, but she cannot claim that this control is equivalent to "free and open dissemination".
Exactly. It is already known that 8% of our genomes comes from HERVs , the novelty of the paper is that this virus is not a retrovirus. The Borna Disease Virus does not require integration ("assimilation" into our genome), in contrast to retroviruses, and I assume that this discovery doesn't change the 8% figure...
Slashdot Mirror
... although factors like scholarity and religious affiliation also play a role
Indeed. The inconsistency becomes more apparent if you abstract the sentence to "X cannot be free unless it is controlled by Y". She is free to defend the control by copyright holders, but she cannot claim that this control is equivalent to "free and open dissemination".
Exactly. It is already known that 8% of our genomes comes from HERVs , the novelty of the paper is that this virus is not a retrovirus. The Borna Disease Virus does not require integration ("assimilation" into our genome), in contrast to retroviruses, and I assume that this discovery doesn't change the 8% figure...