posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:37 PM
I tried to make sure this wasn't a re-post, and if so my bad, but i can't believe this topic isn't on ATS.. The only mention of Michael Crichton's
death being suspicious on the internet seems to be a couple other conspiracy threads
Ok, first of all, Michael Crichton is one of my favorite authors, and until yesterday I did not know he had been dead since Nov. 4 2008. It could
just be me not seeing or hearing about it, but does anyone remember any media coverage of his death? I wiki'd him yesterday to see when he was
releasing a new book, and i found that he'd been dead for a year and a half.
Anyway, that's not the suspicious part.
So I had to write a paper yesterday, and since I had just seen the news (olds?) about Crichton, I decided to write it (an ethical essay for a science
class) about the topic of his last book before his death: gene patenting.
The book is called Next, great book.
For those of you not familiar with Crichton (apart from Jurassic Park), he's a hugely successful writer, and creator/writer of the series ER. He is
a science-fiction writer, but he tends to use facts to explore a (within-the-realm-of-possibility) potential problem with an emerging part of science
in his books (nanotechnology in Prey, gene patents in Next, time travel in Timeline).
So, here's my theory after pulling an all-nighter to write an essay on gene patenting. In the book Next, Crichton shows many problems with
the fact that genes are being patented, and he also shows some potential problems of genetic engineering (protagonist lives with human-chimp hybrid
and a super-smart parrot with human dna)
Also, Crichton shows exactly what kind of power the genetic engineering industry has (multibillion dollar industry)... about 20% of all human genes
(all the known important ones, and lots more) are patented, and these companies and universities have the exclusive rights to use "their" genes.
This eliminates competition and drives prices way up (see Myriad genetics charging $3000 for the only available genetic screening for breast cancer,
and screwing the Europeans even more than us (they have international patents)). Actually Myriad just got denied in court march 29, look it up if you
want more info.
Honestly, I tried to write an unbiased essay on gene patents, but literally every time I found someone arguing for gene patenting, I found out that
they were directly and hugely benefitting from gene patents (all the pro-patent sources i found, other than a few bloggers out of tons, were either
companies with gene patents or a patent lawyer, and half his clients hold gene patents)
To give examples of how these companies fudge the truth:
- Jorge Goldstein, the patent lawyer, has a law firm with 3 other people that he's the head of. on their site they have a huge list of clients
including adidas, google, apple, and some other ambiguously-named genetic engineering companies. Like half of the clients have links, and half
don't. I looked up most of those companies and found out that most of the companies without links were the gene-patenting ones, and the ones with
links were almost all not gene-patenting. Their law firm's website has no mention of gene patenting or anything related to genetics, although
getting gene patents for clients is most of what he does. I only found all of this when I decided to look up this guys credentials after reading this
completely biased article v v v
In the article he wrote on gene patenting, which never mentions that he is a patent lawyer, he completely fudges facts and uses lawyer-like evasive
techniques to avoid answering real questions about gene patents, and making it seem like people against gene patents simply don't understand
Simple fact is, genes are being patented so people can have a monopoly on their use which already causes many problems (look it up) but could end up
with horrible consequences once we can find new uses for genetic engineering
[edit on 29-4-2010 by lldd182]
[edit on 29-4-2010 by lldd182]