Private Firms Own 22% of the Human Genome , page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 5-12-2008 @ 12:42 AM by prevenge
Originally posted by HugmyRek
Yes this sounds very stupid (financially, genus, really). So...who owns the oak, the bee, the test tube baby?

scam.


this may sound far out to many...

but if the highest offices in the world power structure / shadow power structure.. know the "whole story" ..

then possibly they understand that they cannot patent organisms that have been already "patented" by their origonal creators.

say "eden" was a laboratory.. or a "company preserve".. where all the organisms on planet earth were created in genetic labs, BY a different race(s) of intelligent beings (then "gods" .. Annunaki, Nephilim, etc...) ..

and that they literally hold unquestioned patent on their creations.. which .. would be products of their own ingenuity.

thus, "mankind" .. we "humans" .. can only patent that which WE create.

I mean.. if that's the story.. and actual alien beings created us.. and created all the different shades and species of life here on earth..

then thats their property...
and.. er.. are "we" .. "their" property??

I've read multiple times where Grays claim that our "bodies" are not "ours" .. we're just "driving" them as "vehicles"... and that the actual genetic composition.. the code of molecules of DNA that make up the human genome is actually "theirs"...

or at least "their version" of someone elses' creatoin...

their patent in GM-ing something someone else made.. just like Monsanto patents corn cotton and tomatoes that they've modified.. from something someone ELSE created.

one benefit of thinking about everything in this manner..
is that while you're looking at life.. the grass.. the birds.. the wildlife.. etc..
you can look at it all as someone's INVENTION... that there is harmonious architecture and design behind each colorful feather..
behind each slimy slug.. behind each fin and fish.

something someone else spent years and years perfecting.. drawing from different "modules".. and "plugins" for specific colorings or skeletal arrangement.. or protein production...
all into perfection.

it's like wildlife can be a giant art gallery... that is filled with the artistic creations of thousands of artistic scientists... that created these beautiful purposeful creatures..
and that we could strive to achieve that ability as a race as WELL.


just a thought.


but as for the OP,
for now (next couple hundred years)...I think any ingenuity should reap benefits to the individuals that worked hard to produce it.
even if it's just a modified version of something you found.

eventually i think it could be open source.. as it becomes common knowledge.. down the road...
when we all work together as artistic scientists... and have moved beyond monetary credit as a source for incentive to be productive.
but that's a long way off...hundreds of years off.

-


reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 12:59 AM by ngchunter
Originally posted by Flighty
Considering that the general public donate billions of dollars to medical and scientific research, not to mention donate the blood and raw materials (some even donate their bodies at death) that are used for research AND be the guinea pigs for lab experiments as well...

To then expect us to pay for access to the fruits of all this, is corrupt and totally unfair.

Donations are all well and good and allow the basic early research to be carried out, but when it comes right down to it, the cost of bringing a drug from the drawing board to market is absolutely staggering, something along the lines of about 800 million dollars. Grants cannot cover anything but a fraction of that cost. To suggest that you shouldn't have to pay for access to the fruits of that massive investment is just plain silly.

You don't mind them making a profit for all the hard work but taking out patents on something that existed and all they did was TINKER WITH is absurd.

It's insulting to belittle the "tinkering" that goes on when a useful gene is discovered. It takes years of research (as well as blood, sweat, and tears by people like yours truly) to use it in making a useable drug. If they can't take out a patent then they can't protect their investment, any competitor could manufacture their product unabated without having to invest a dime in all of the research that lead up to it. How would that be anything less than absurd?

[edit on 6-12-2008 by ngchunter]


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 07:00 PM by The All Seeing I

Amish gene 'limits heart disease'

A gene mutation which protects the heart against a high-fat diet has been found in the Amish population. Researchers found 5% of the US Amish population in Lancaster, Pennsylvania have a mutation in a protein which breaks down fatty particles.

In this case, shouldn't the amish own the rights to their own gene's, collect royalties etc?


[edit on 12-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 09:30 AM by drevill
reply to post by The All Seeing I



Just think if you have cross polination of humans of non altered and altered

Isn't the altered genetic material still owned by the corporation? ergo you can only reproduce under licence. contraband could be retrieved and destroyed.

david
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Whats your banjo story?
  Music, Posted 22 minutes ago
Greetings and Salutations
  Introductions, Posted 23 minutes ago
Modern Terrorism
  Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 25 minutes ago
Finally made an account on ATS
  Introductions, Posted 34 minutes ago
Another new one......
  Introductions, Posted 35 minutes ago
Shock analysis. World Exclusive
  Rant, Posted 1 hours ago