Lab Coat Guy Pwns Joo

People smarter than you (some of whom may be gay atheists) wearing lab coats and carrying clip boards (such as the one's being modeled to left) have discovered nearly 24,000 human genes found in human DNA, over 4,000 of which have been patented by private firms and universities.



















One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals
NationalGeographic.com
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 13, 2005

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

The study, which is reported this week in the journal Science, is the first time that a detailed map has been created to match patents to specific physical locations on the human genome.

Researchers can patent genes because they are potentially valuable research tools, useful in diagnostic tests or to discover and produce new drugs.

"It might come as a surprise to many people that in the U.S. patent system human DNA is treated like other natural chemical products," said Fiona Murray, a business and science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and a co-author of the study.

"An isolated DNA sequence can be patented in the same manner that a new medicine, purified from a plant, could be patented if an inventor identifies a [new] application."

Gene patents were central to the biotech boom of the 1980s and 1990s. The earliest gene patents were obtained around 1978 on the gene for human growth hormone.

The human genome project and the introduction of rapid sequencing techniques brought a deluge of new genetic information and many new patents. Yet there has been little comprehensive research about the extent of gene patenting.

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.

The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based drug company whose patents cover 2,000 human genes.

"Gene patents give their owners property rights over gene sequences—for example in a diagnostic test, as a test for the efficacy of a new drug, or in the production of therapeutic proteins," Murray said.

You, close up.

Deal with it.

if you havent seen the documentary titled "the corporation" yet, there is a whole segment on private companies "patenting life" in there.

Watch it and be scared.....very scared

One word.

Monsanto. Monsanto likes to play God. Hopefully they keep their mitts off us.

2000 Flashback

Clinton and Blair fire warning shots at Gene Mapping industry. And...

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush has expressed concern at "people taking the place of God."

Then took their political contributions anyway, told the religious right to trust him, and 5 years later...



Lab Coat Guy Pwns Joo

Originally posted by Dulcimer
One word.

Monsanto. Monsanto likes to play God. Hopefully they keep their mitts off us.

They arent....and you are using the wrong tense

One of the worst things about these Gene patents it could very well hinder medical advancements.

Say your company A and "own" gene number 142 or whatever. Now say company B comes along and is looking at genes to use as research tools for new drugs. Your going to stay away from gene 142 under patent of another company because if you dont then they take money from your finds. IMHO that would hinder progress because companies will be limited in where they work in the gene sequence.

Well I also think patents on Human genes is just insane. They throw out a requested patent on Human/animal chimeras but they allow this

[sarcasm] Just wait until they try to charge you a fee for using your own genetic structure. [/sarcasm]

When just being alive means you are guilty of patent infrengement, something is definately wrong.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
[sarcasm] Just wait until they try to charge you a fee for using your own genetic structure. [/sarcasm]

I know you were being sarcastic there, but as someone who deals with patetents quite frequently, you may have something there. If you own a patent on a machine component I can't use that component unless I get permission from you, usually in the form of a payment or a license agreement. All we need is a lawyer looking to make a quick buck and a judge looking to further an agenda (or looking for a bribe to retire on) and we may have to pay royalties to these companies when we have a child. This is not as far fetched as it may seem the legal background is already in place.

Well sir I see here your life license has not been renewed because you have been late on your royalty payments of $1000 per month. I'm really sorry sir, I'de like to help you really I would, but thats the law--Baliff, take this man out and kill him and give his functional parts to the patent holder for sale.

This was the exact reason why allot of people were against genetic patents.
Let us hope some sanity returns to Patent law soon as we are reaching a
critical juncture in Human evolution.

The patent holders don't own anyone and you aren't violating any patent laws merely by holding these genes. If you wanted to, say, have genetic engineering done on you and wanted to use a gene that they

1. discovered
2. worked out the protein product for and
3. worked out how it functions

then, and I think this is sensible, you'd have to pay to have the procedure done.

But, again, to be clear, they don't own anyone.

This might be obvious to some of us, but I know that there are people that really do think that this means that they do.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The patent holders don't own anyone and you aren't violating any patent laws merely by holding these genes. If you wanted to, say, have genetic engineering done on you and wanted to use a gene that they

1. discovered
2. worked out the protein product for and
3. worked out how it functions

then, and I think this is sensible, you'd have to pay to have the procedure done.

The problem I have with patenting Genes is that word discovered. Seems to me nobody has discovered a gene--documented it yes, figured out exactly what it does and how it does it yes, but not discovered.

Even if it was a "discovery" it still should not be patentable. If I discover a new type of star through some new fangled telescope can I claim ownership? NO! I can name it and benefit from all the stuff I learn from said discovery but I cannot claim ownership of what is basically a natural phenomenon not an invention.

Artificial Gene Sequences should be patentable as it implies that it was created and not just observed(allthough that should be strickly limited)

Already existing gene sequences like those presant in our own genome should be the property of no one.

Hey, I like that labcoat. Where did you get that image from? I want one if it's priced within reason.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
One of the worst things about these Gene patents it could very well hinder medical advancements.

...Well I also think patents on Human genes is just insane. They throw out a requested patent on Human/animal chimeras but they allow this

Kinda like what's happening with bird flu data, huh? Like, we're being pushed to a global pandemic just so the big boyz can profiteer from disaster and their Intellectual Property Rights.

Ok - that was a rant. Only partially true. Just ignore me.

Carry on - this is a good thread.

Well is not surprised to see privatization of Gene patents after all isn't what American has become lately a bit privatized nation, where everything can be bought and pay for it by the right prices.

Not surprised at all.