1/5 of human genes patented... are we going to hell or what?

Users who are viewing this thread

Hardclyff

Recruit
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
From the article:

A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.

...

The new study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents. Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities.


Discuss.
 
Nice. It's like that small company that patented something about a 3D spherical camera view and now is sueing all these major gaming companies.

I don't even understand the point of patents. It's a way of being able to say 'This is mine!' while impeding progress as much as possible. Imagine how much more productive someone else could be with your great idea that you're sitting on and waiting for someone to touch so you could sue, you bastard.

I love this country. Yay.
 
Pharaoh Llandy said:
Pft, that's like trying to patent oxygen.

You can only patent things invented, not things discovered.

Philosofical: Try drawing a concrete border between those two. It's really hard and would always be discutable.

Many american companies and firms tend to patent as much as they can to get as much money as possible. You see it all the time, especially in the computer world.
 
I won't get into details other than to say that I disagree with the majority of posts here.

I understand why businesses and Universities have submitted patents on certain human genes. Is it productive and better for the common good? No. Is it an intelligent move towards cornering a specific market in the future? Maybe.

Patents are needed and good, yet in this case I cannot entirely agree. It could actually prevent beneficial discoveries from being made and that is bad.

Some of you do not seem to understand what a patent is ...

Merriam-Webster said:
Main Entry: 2pat·ent
Pronunciation: 'pa-t&nt, British also 'pA-
Function: noun
1 : an official document conferring a right or privilege : LETTERS PATENT
2 a : a writing securing to an inventor for a term of years the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention b : the monopoly or right so granted c : a patented invention
3 : PRIVILEGE, LICENSE
4 : an instrument making a conveyance of public lands; also : the land so conveyed

Patents are a very good thing.
 
The future can't come too soon. These developments can't go anywhere but in an interesting direction, whether the direction is a good one to pursue... not that I'd care too much if it wasn't. I am infinitely curious about the subject. This is why I'm majoring in Biomedical Engineering-- what could be more interesting than life, after all? I can't wait to do a little gene splicing here and there (I've only had one chance to do it, and it was on some lame E. coli, granted that they glowed afterward and it was freaking sweet) and grow my first nose in vitro.

:)
 
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Can specific DNA sequences be patented? Apparantly so. should they be patented? And if so, why? To allow greedy corporations to reap the benefits of medical enhancement at the cost of the species?
 
Does anyone here remember the words from the opening movie of Alpha Centarui? Something about the US government realising it's preactise of hiding information from the public and world brought it's downfall. I am reeminded of that right now.

Ok, I agree with Narcissus, this case is DEFINATELY too much patenting, I also think the 3d spherical camera one is also a money grubbing profit sheme and is totaly stupid. I'll use it as my example for a bad one. Just because they patented it first, not nesecaraly they invented it, should that mean many good games have to have crappy camera views? I think it's patent should be revoked. In the case of DNA, it's the same, what if a researcher was n the brink to a cure for a previuosly uncureable disease, not cancer, but something bad that could pose a world wide threat? ANd his research is leaked and the company SUES HIm and he fails to make the cure in time as the courts ordered him to stop or something, or he makes the cure but loses everything due to patent breaching. Or he might get away with it of course. But the possiablility is there. Also, he could be a she.
 
PrinceScamp said:
Does anyone here remember the words from the opening movie of Alpha Centarui?

Yes, I just quoted the last line of it.

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
 
Pharaoh Llandy said:
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Can specific DNA sequences be patented? Apparantly so. should they be patented? And if so, why? To allow greedy corporations to reap the benefits of medical enhancement at the cost of the species?

I suppose that it depends on what perspective you want to see it from.

Huge corporations are what make things happen, in this day and age. Admit it or don't, it still remains a fact. Am I advocating it? No, not really. Although, I must admit, that I'm not against it either.

Who, if not huge corporations, are going to fund DNA research and such? Governments? They are huge corporations ... just disguised as something else. Reaping the benefits of medical enhancements at the cost of the species? Pharmaceutical companies do this, yet without them ... where would we have received the medical enhancements? Those same pharmaceutical companies (usually) funded the research for the products that they sell or else they paid insane amounts of money to buy the patent ... which is virtually the same thing.

Patenting DNA sequences and specific human genes has several effects. It ensures that the company that is pouring millions of dollars into research will not be 'out-of-luck' when a larger corporation pours a few more million into the same research and makes a discovery first. Which, in turn, 'paves the way' for more areas to be researched at the same time. On the other hand, it does exclude others from delving into said research and making a discovery sooner ... also preventing collaboration between two projects regarding the same subject.

As far as calling them greedy and such ... who isn't greedy? Show me a self-sacrificing individual and I'll show you a figment of your imagination. Everyone is greedy ... it is human nature. Corporations are lead and made up of ... people. To think that a corporation wouldn't have its own interests as it's top priority is impossible ... because to think that ... a person wouldn't be 'thinking'. And in my opinion ... they should make money from investments. Else, why would they invest? For the greater good of mankind? Nope ... only if it directly benefited the people that were controlling the corporation.

As I said ... I'm not overly fond of the technique ... yet I'm obviously not against it either. It might not be the best system of doing things, but it is what we have and it works; however inefficient it is. I'm just choosing the 'other side' of the argument because everyone seems to be taking the 'we are oppressed and abused' view. There are two sides (or more) to every situation. Robin Hood was a hero to the commoner, yet to wealthy merchants that had been plying their trade honestly for years ... was a villain.

Narcissus
 
Narcissus said:
As far as calling them greedy and such ... who isn't greedy? Show me a self-sacrificing individual and I'll show you a figment of your imagination. Everyone is greedy ... it is human nature.

Ooh, a challenge! I accept.

Latin America and the Caribbean

Of all developing and transitional regions, Latin America and the Caribbean has by far the most comprehensive ARV treatment coverage, with 62% of those in need receiving drugs. More than a third of those being treated live in Brazil, which is a world leader in providing ARVs free to its population, achieved mainly through in-country production of cheap generic ARVs. Progress in other countries varies widely

<snip>

Cuba

Cuba set up its National Commission on AIDS in 1983, three years before its first case was diagnosed. It has since had a 'strong-arm' approach to dealing with HIV, quarantining those diagnosed, having strict partner tracing programmes, as well as having compulsory 8 week education programmes for those diagnosed and providing ARVs for all pregnant women. Just a handful of children have ever been born HIV+ on the island. Cuba consequently has one of the lowest prevalence rates in the world, at 0.1%. At the end of 2003, there were 3,300 people living with HIV.

No ARVs were available in Cuba up until 2001 because of the US trade embargo. However, in 2001, Cuban laboratories began making generic ARVs and now Cuba is one of only a few developing countries producing their own supplies of the drugs to all people living with HIV who need treatment. Latest available data records 1,500-2,000 people receiving ARVs in Cuba, which is more than the number thought by UNAIDS/WHO to be in immediate need. The island's mortality rate from AIDS has now dropped to as low as 7% of patients with AIDS. Because of it success in providing ARVs for its own population, Cuba is now looking to export generic drugs to other developing countries.

((((Note from Llandy: This is a move that has been blocked as much as possible by the US Pharma companies which hold a lot of "patents" on anti-retroviral drugs and wish to have a monopoly on exporting them to developing nations such as Africa for higher prices than Cuba))))

<snip>

United States of America

The first AIDS drugs were developed in 1987, four years after HIV was first identified. Since the mid-1990s, when combination therapy was introduced, US AIDS deaths have dropped about 70%. In 2003, the number of people living with AIDS in the USA was 384,906.

Most people in the US access their care and treatment through privately bought health insurance, as there is no country-wide state provision of healthcare. However, not all people can afford insurance. Instead they use Medicaid or Medicare, programs that pay for medical assistance for certain individuals and families with low incomes and resources. These programs provide medical long-term care assistance to people who meet certain eligibility criteria.

Since 1987, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), which are federally and state-funded and state-run, have made treatments available primarily to low-income HIV patients who do not qualify for Medicaid. Currently, ADAPs buy around 20 percent of the HIV drugs prescribed in the United States, enough for 92,000 people. So far, 11 states have been forced to close ADAP enrolment for new patients. Others have tightened income-eligibility criteria. In April 2004, 1,263 people nationwide were waiting to access any kind of treatment through ADAPs. There are, even in America, people who die for want of AIDS drugs.

Source: http://www.avert.org/aidstarget.htm

Well, that's an example of some governments/corporations putting the welfare of the people above financial gain. As to unselfish individuals.... I have known, and do know, plenty. A woman I work with regularly does sponsored runs for charity. When I did volunteer work with mentally and handicapped children, I met lots of volunteers who, like myself, were helping because there was a real need, even though there was no monetary compensation whatsoever.

Although it may be true that there is not a single 100% unselfish person in the whole world, I don't believe that gives companies the right to hold monopolies over treatments that may potentially save millions of lives. Or, rather, from their POV it might be "right", but is it ethically correct? (That's rhetorical, BTW).

Robin Hood was a hero to the commoner, yet to wealthy merchants that had been plying their trade honestly for years ... was a villain.

Narcissus

Shame. Sherwood Forest, could today use a few Robin Hoods.
 
nice going guys (and girl)
this topic makes me throw up.

this is my standard reaction when i'm reminded of just how bad our world is.

i agree with narcissus about the role corporations are playing these days. but the idea scares me so much.
without patents the amount of money that would be put in research would drop. patents are neccesery it's as simple as that. no patents meens no funding. no funding means no research. no research means no new cures and stuff.

the down side is corporations are taking over the world. all very nice and cyberpunk.

well that's it for me. i'm going to throw up again and i wont be returning to this topic so don't expect any more feedback from me
 
I would say patents aren't generally good or bad. Reasonable patent policy is indeed vital in some areas of R&D. On the other hand, today's patent policy (computer related or not) in the US is ridiculous, anyone can patent any idea, widely used process or pattern, and patents may be so generic that practically any application of some basic idea can be potentialy illegal.

This is one of my favourite sites: http://totallyabsurd.com/archive.htm These are just for fun. I can assure you there are thousands of patents more ridiculous than that but not that funny, rather pretty scary.
 
And then the Large corporations begin the long process of sueing every human being for using the genes that they have patented. :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom