Private Firms Own 22% of the Human Genome

Fascinating article,
i just wanted to share and get some feedback from my fellow ATS science buffs...
Should such fundamental building blocks be for sale or leased or open-sourced?
...and do such patent rights help or hinder the scientific process?


[edit on 4-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

[edit on 4-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Simply discovering these genes, shouldn't entitle anybody to own them as they existed long before they were discovered. It seems to me that patent laws were developed as a means of protection for inventors...in order to make ingenuity profitable.

I don't think it's right for companies to own any part of the genetic materials that belong to any organisms.

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.

-

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.

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.

I think this is just disgusting, especially after the recent news of babies being denied a treatment because someone owned a stupid patent on it! It's standing in the way of good health and valuable science! To tell the truth, I think the patent system is just a joke! It needs major reform.

Patents and copyrights can only exist until such a point as the technology becomes common place enough for the general population to manipulate and control on their own.

A short period of oppression always follows change, followed by a long period of enhancement of the human condition.

The "Gene" is out of the bottle so to speak

I suppose one could see this like the land grab in the new world. Once you have stated claim to a piece of property you are essentially the landLORD... and by LORD i mean a kind of GOD in that you have permission to do what you will with it.

Now it's rare that you see a property owner giving away their investment... especially if it generates funds. With this metaphor in play, the genome is obviously a parallel to land, both have infinite profit potential... but at what cost to science and society?

In that case, we may as well pack it in for biotech as we know it. Human insulin should have never come to the market in that case; it's one of the very first modern biotech products, and a direct result of early genetic engineering in bacteria where the human gene for insulin was inserted into a bacterial cell for "manufacture." Despite all the grants in the world, no drug can make it to market unless there is a chance it will make money. Drug development is incredibly expensive and grant money is really only useful for the earliest phases. Once it reaches clinical trials it basically needs venture capital, which is contingent on it making a profit if it succeeds. If there's no chance for profit, there's no money to be had, and in fact most researchers simply can not afford to bankroll the entire clinical trial process by themselves. It is absolutely vital that if a researcher discovers a gene that could be used to make a drug or treatment that they are allowed to patent the gene and its product so that they can make money from it and allow it to come to market.

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.

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]

So what i am hearing is... that we should embrace this approach much like we do with any new technological product. Using video game consoles as an example, once the latest greatest system or game hits the market, there is only one source from which you have to pay the highest price, but each year the most popular games are released on alternative systems and the prices get lower and lower, till they are practically giving it away. i.e. pacman from standup arcade system that went for around a grand in 1980 to today, when you can play it for free online... and for those on the development side, source code is out there for the taking as well.

In sum, a simple supply and demand equation?

[edit on 7-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Kinda sorta. Drug companies can only hold exclusive rights for a set limit of time, which is when they need to recoup all the money invested in the drug's development. After that right expires other companies can start making generic knock-offs and cheaper alternatives, just like how you can get generics of most antibiotics out there today.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by ngchunter]

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]

???????????? as far as I know , the genome project was founded by tax-payers across the planet! And.. even if there was no public funding into this, how can you patent an existing creature? How can people dare to believe they take ownership on things - like air, water, land, DNA ???
I allways said it - the only thing to make the elites own us , is our agreement and our believe that the elites got the right over us.. a scam we still fall for

So you wouldn't mind if I came and lived in your home and on your land since you have no right to it? People have a right to discoveries they make.

The amish didn't make the discovery, they did nothing to invest in making the discovery either. It's not the gene that is patented, it's the knowledge of the gene's sequence which can lead to treatments and drugs.

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

Disillusioned! All of you!

Thats not how it works what so ever. Having a ton of experience in gene calling and gene annotation, YOUR ALL WRONG. Theres no moneytary value what so ever. No one owns these genes per se.

Example:

I discover a novel pathway, and accompanying gene. I get to add it to the database with all the other millions and millions of genes, but it has my name accompanying it, my institution, when and where it was found.

End of story.

No patent.

No money.

No anything.

Period.

I know for a fact that you're wrong. It's true that not every gene discovered will be patented (not all genes are deserving of a patent), but it's incorrect to say that genes are never patented. My own boss has a patent on a naturally occuring mutation of a segment of a gene that predisposes a person to Alzheimer's:
www.freepatentsonline.com...
It's a primary reason I have a job right now.

I've not read the article yet (or all of these posts) I'm gonna do that now - but did it say where this patent applies? I mean is it global? Or does it apply say n the USA - but you could go do your research in Europe?

I can see why they want to protect their investment some how - cos it had to be expensive to catalogue DNA (or whatever they call it) and it is basically data - no physical item - so when you give it to someone they basically have it.

Just imagine if I unified physics!! I could charge a fee for everything that occurs on both quantum and relative levels! I believe every person and animal has to pay me for existing to start with

Hang on... I'm using my DNA right now... Am I infringing copyright?