Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ok 4th attempt at a poll..

Yes, no patent = no guarantee of return on investment = no investment = no bloody good for anyone.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, no patent = no guarantee of return on investment = no investment = no bloody good for anyone. You seem to be well informed on that subject. Could you elaborate a bit. What exactly is patented? What does it mean?

a patent on a naturally occurring gene is pretty redundant unless you are in the field of pharmacological or medical research. This does not mean that someone owns any part of you or your genetic sequence.

It has to do with the production of those genes. A pharmaceutical company will invest the millions and millions of dollars into genetic research to discover that there may be a genetic cause to a particular disease. To do this, the manufacturing of genes is necessary (Really can't harvest them). The patent basically means that this particular company can manufacture the specific product (the gene) without having to worry that someone else will copy it.

So, like Ush said, the fact that they get to patent for the gene means that they will have the exclusive rights to produce the medicine or treatment.

The funniest part about the gene patenting thing is how paranoid people seem to be about it. Like, what do you think could possibly happen if every gene in the human body was patented? Are you personally interested in creating genes for profit? are you worried about the monopolization of medical research by major corporations? or, as I assume, are you just a pseudo-liberal who likes to rant about anything the pharmaceutical (or any major business) companies do even though you have no idea of what it means.

Originally posted by inimalist
a patent on a naturally occurring gene is pretty redundant unless you are in the field of pharmacological or medical research. This does not mean that someone owns any part of you or your genetic sequence.

It has to do with the production of those genes. A pharmaceutical company will invest the millions and millions of dollars into genetic research to discover that there may be a genetic cause to a particular disease. To do this, the manufacturing of genes is necessary (Really can't harvest them). The patent basically means that this particular company can manufacture the specific product (the gene) without having to worry that someone else will copy it.

So, like Ush said, the fact that they get to patent for the gene means that they will have the exclusive rights to produce the medicine or treatment.

The funniest part about the gene patenting thing is how paranoid people seem to be about it. Like, what do you think could possibly happen if every gene in the human body was patented? Are you personally interested in creating genes for profit? are you worried about the monopolization of medical research by major corporations? or, as I assume, are you just a pseudo-liberal who likes to rant about anything the pharmaceutical (or any major business) companies do even though you have no idea of what it means. I am just wondering in what way that limits freedoms. Also how that is compared to patenting trees or something. Just wondering if that type of patenting is reasonable or...as well the DNA occurs in everybody whether it should not be patentable. Those are some of the questions I have hearing about it for the first time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am just wondering in what way that limits freedoms. Also how that is compared to patenting trees or something. Just wondering if that type of patenting is reasonable or...as well the DNA occurs in everybody whether it should not be patentable. Those are some of the questions I have hearing about it for the first time.

a tree could be patented I guess, all that would mean though is that no lab anywhere else in the world could recreate those genes without the written consent of the lab who patented them. It doesn't mean that the trees would be cut down or that you couldn't grow one.

It doesn't really control anything, it just assures that if a company spends millions of dollars to learn how to produce and read the genes also get to profit from it. Without it, there would be no investment into the research phase, since everyone could just copy it after you did all the heavy lifting.

The difficult one is more along the lines of food crops. There are several instances where an aboriginal or poor farming community in a third world country have had their particular grain patented (which they had been growing for years and selling). In this case, companies can try to control the distribution of that gain, but courts have supported the farmers in more cases than not. I also don't think this is a problem with North American farms either, and may just be an example of a single case or two...

Originally posted by inimalist
a tree could be patented I guess, all that would mean though is that no lab anywhere else in the world could recreate those genes without the written consent of the lab who patented them. It doesn't mean that the trees would be cut down or that you couldn't grow one.

It doesn't really control anything, it just assures that if a company spends millions of dollars to learn how to produce and read the genes also get to profit from it. Without it, there would be no investment into the research phase, since everyone could just copy it after you did all the heavy lifting.

The difficult one is more along the lines of food crops. There are several instances where an aboriginal or poor farming community in a third world country have had their particular grain patented (which they had been growing for years and selling). In this case, companies can try to control the distribution of that gain, but courts have supported the farmers in more cases than not. I also don't think this is a problem with North American farms either, and may just be an example of a single case or two... But why should just one company be allowed to research something? If they create something, great go for it. But if two people want to research the same genes why shouldn't they? They kinda grew them themselves in their ass anyways?. Just not sure whether you should be allowed to get a patent on something that grows naturally everywhere. But as I said I don't know much about those laws, and I might be wrong. How was it with Aspirin? Is that just the natural substance that got patented?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But why should just one company be allowed to research something? If they create something, great go for it. But if two people want to research the same genes why shouldn't they? They kinda grew them themselves in their ass anyways?. Just not sure whether you should be allowed to get a patent on something that grows naturally everywhere. But as I said I don't know much about those laws, and I might be wrong. How was it with Aspirin? Is that just the natural substance that got patented?

why should a company be able to patent anything?

the whole concept of a patent is to encourage innovation. It costs far more to design, engineer and research a new product than to just copy what is being made in the market. If it is not cost effictive to be innovative, companies wont be.

If you are against innovation, then sure, everyone should be allowed to do anything.

The laws themselves have many problems. Asparin would be patented because it is a chemical formula. Again, since it is produced naturally, if you wanted to get some willow bark, go for it, but if you want to concentrated chemical, get asparin.

A weird addition to all this is a relic of the patent medicine days. It is illegal to say that willow bark with provide relief for any specific medical condition in the way that you can for aspirin. This is because things need to go through FDA approvals (Health Canada here) to be able to say certain things, and I think there are enough other concerns with willowbark that it wouldn't pass that. Its more pronounced in stuff like vegtables, where certain cancer fighting agents have been found, or vitamins in fruits or whatever. They are allowed to put stuff like "Contains flavanoids" or "a good source of vitamin C" but are not allowed to say that they will treat the things that flavanoids or vitamin c would treat.

This just reminds me of that Futurama episode that Fry downloaded Licy Liu as his "fembot."

Classic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to be well informed on that subject. Could you elaborate a bit. What exactly is patented? What does it mean?

I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Are you serious?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm honestly not sure if they can patent a full, already living organism (they have patented mice that have been modified to grow cancer really fast and stuff like that). I also don't see how it would matter, unless it comes to the cases of farmers and distribution rights, but I cannot see a court upholding the right of a corporation to patent something that is already being sold on the market... That's the thing. Modified things should be patentable....

B-but things that grow everywhere ... well, they don't belong as concepts to anybody. Patents are usually used for inventions. Like, you might get a patent for a steam engine but not for steam.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the thing. Modified things should be patentable....

B-but things that grow everywhere ... well, they don't belong as concepts to anybody. Patents are usually used for inventions. Like, you might get a patent for a steam engine but not for steam.

I don't understand your point...

1) Human genes are produced naturally and thus not subject to patent laws
2) Human genes produced in a lab are patented
3) The only people who have to worry about patented genes are others interested in using the genes, ie, those in medical research.
4) Without these patents, companies would not invest into the research

the steam analogy might be better like this: Sure, you could have a patent for steam, however, you would not be able to prevent the natural distribution of steam. So, if you have a process that creates steam, you can patent that particular steam, so nobody else can use it. You however wouldn't have control over natural steam.

Like, I'm interested in a specific example of what you see as the problem here? How does the fact that whichever gene causes huntingtons is patented by a major corporation affect you?

I think people also need to remember that patents only last for so long. I don't know about the lifespan of a genetic patent, but I cannot see a reason for them being forever exclusive. Like acetometaphin.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Heres an interesting editorial by Author Micheal Crichton, it is on the new york times website, but you have to register so Ill paste it here.

"Patenting Life

Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL CRICHTON
Published: February 13, 2007


Michael Crichton is not an MD, nor does he work in medical research or in pharmacology. He is not involved in patents.

Unfortunatly, with very few exceptions, he offers no real examples of issues that are not related more to the privatization of health care in America. Basic fearmongering.

Look, he is right, the laws never were meant to apply to human genes or currently living things, and there is a lot of abuse. However, what they were ment to apply to were things like genetically engineered bacteria and other things (cancer mice). New products that really do deserve patent protection.

Something that crossed my mind is if they own the gene and have exclusive rights then they should also have the liability for said gene, so if I get the disease that that gene makes I should be able to sue them.

Another thing is what would happen if I used my own genes to do testing on, could they sue me for using my own gene material?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Something that crossed my mind is if they own the gene and have exclusive rights then they should also have the liability for said gene, so if I get the disease that that gene makes I should be able to sue them.

interesting point...

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Another thing is what would happen if I used my own genes to do testing on, could they sue me for using my own gene material?

apparently, which is odd. I don't know, go buy some 600 000 genetic engineering technology and we will see how far we can push it in the courts.

Originally posted by inimalist
apparently, which is odd. I don't know, go buy some 600 000 genetic engineering technology and we will see how far we can push it in the courts. Well off to go on a shopping spree...

























*looks at bank account...*




























*off to rob 500 banks*

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't understand your point...

1) Human genes are produced naturally and thus not subject to patent laws
2) Human genes produced in a lab are patented
3) The only people who have to worry about patented genes are others interested in using the genes, ie, those in medical research.
4) Without these patents, companies would not invest into the research

the steam analogy might be better like this: Sure, you could have a patent for steam, however, you would not be able to prevent the natural distribution of steam. So, if you have a process that creates steam, you can patent that particular steam, so nobody else can use it. You however wouldn't have control over natural steam.

Like, I'm interested in a specific example of what you see as the problem here? How does the fact that whichever gene causes huntingtons is patented by a major corporation affect you?

I think people also need to remember that patents only last for so long. I don't know about the lifespan of a genetic patent, but I cannot see a reason for them being forever exclusive. Like acetometaphin. Well, that's what my question is about. Sure, if you can produce human genes in the lab you can patent the procedure, imo, but if someone else can also create those genes in a different way why shouldn't they use that, it is afterall genes that grow naturally anywhere.

What is the person that patents a gene entitled to. That's my problem, I don't quite understand it yet. (To clarify, I am sure the American patent system is intelligently made and will have a point, I'd like to understand that point though), basically by asking what I see might be odd.



T-this is Bardock, obviously.

Patents should be used for genetic code. If I create an super human...I would sure as hell want to own all rights to this super human. If my scientists and I worked our asses off day in and day out on a perfected human form...then I would not want some cheap ass mother f**ker stealing my research and making a profit of it with their own efforts...I would charge another company to use my research...I might even collaborate.

But that is not really what people are talking about...despite that fact that they suspect that a few athletes at next years Olympics will be "gene dopers".

You guys are wondering about patents on specific genetic sequences and the regulation of rights to those sequences. I am indifferent as I see both sides very well. For the time being, it may be a better regulate the amount of money that can be charged for utilizing a patented sequence and if the holder of the patent believes they have a real gem on their hands and that they deserve more for their work...then a third party team should review their case and judge whether or not they deserve how much they are asking for. You know, what the government does all the time; fund a committee/review board and give it a title like the medical patents appeals court. Yea!!! Spend taxpayer money.

Like with all government committees and organizations, it will be subject to corruption.

Really though, we need some way of reducing medical costs in America and I can see genetic patents inflating future medical costs further.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee.We should not go around playing God.jm

I doubt we'll ever be able to create an entire universe and everything in it in seven days, so what's wrong with a little gene splicing, especially if it improves the human condition?

If I invested hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars producing and validating a Huntington's transgenic model over several years, you better believe I'm going to patent it.

You can't just identify a sequence and patent it as far as I'm aware... you have to actually do something with it. And the patent is specific to that process and/or usage. And patents expire.

The PCR technique and Taq polymerase were under patent from 1983-2005. It's likely to go under patent again. It's a regular used technique everywhere. One can try and argue that the patent and others like it have hindered scientific advancement. One can also easily argue that without a guaranteed return in the form of patentability investors and even researchers likely aren't going to go near some projects, and that this and other techniques invaluable to biomedical research today would have never come about.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If I invested hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars producing and validating a Huntington's transgenic model over several years, you better believe I'm going to patent it.

You can't just identify a sequence and patent it as far as I'm aware... you have to actually do something with it. And the patent is specific to that process and/or usage. And patents expire.

The PCR technique and Taq polymerase were under patent from 1983-2005. It's likely to go under patent again. It's a regular used technique everywhere. One can try and argue that the patent and others like it have hindered scientific advancement. One can also easily argue that without a guaranteed return in the form of patentability investors and even researchers likely aren't going to go near some projects, and that this and other techniques invaluable to biomedical research today would have never come about. That's what I mean, if you do something with it that's of course yours. Why should the naturally occuring thing be yours though. I mean, take coal, you can own a lot of coal, you can patent your way of transforming it into oil but you can't just patent coal...it's everywhere.

Then again it might have a different effect with genes. I just don't feel like that article tells enough, and I wonder what supporters know that I don't.

I.e. OMG corporations are profiting. Heavens to mergatroid!
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I mean, if you do something with it that's of course yours. Why should the naturally occuring thing be yours though. I mean, take coal, you can own a lot of coal, you can patent your way of transforming it into oil but you can't just patent coal...it's everywhere.

Then again it might have a different effect with genes. I just don't feel like that article tells enough, and I wonder what supporters know that I don't. I would assume that the requisite would be to describe the usage of the gene with sufficient specificity, or the process to isolate, purify, clone the gene, stably transfect etc.

I highly doubt any patenting body would grant broad rights over a sequence without stipulations.

No, no, no..... just leave the whole genes thing alone. You go messing with that sort of thing you're three steps closer to screwing up royally

I don't quite see how you could patent "1/5" of genes. Genes are constantly evolving and mutating with each generation and in each individual. The number of genes is astronomically inconceivable, and the total is added to each time they get spliced up to make the transition to a new survival machine (us).

Originally posted by Julie
No, no, no..... just leave the whole genes thing alone. You go messing with that sort of thing you're three steps closer to screwing up royally What?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't quite see how you could patent "1/5" of genes.

It has been some what cleared up already by other posters. What is left that is unclear and other posters and I will try to help.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Genes are constantly evolving and mutating with each generation and in each individual.

Yes, but far less than to have it hinder research. Think about it; why would all those genetic researchers be investing all of their time into those projects if the genes were mutating too fast to keep up with them? There is far more continuity than you have been lead to believe in your studies.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The number of genes is astronomically inconceivable, and the total is added to each time they get spliced up to make the transition to a new survival machine (us).

The number of genes is not astronomically inconceivable. On an astronomical number scale, the number of genes in the entire human genome is moderate at best. Maybe astronomical...but definitely not inconceivable Mr. hyperbole. (you tho thilly Teehee).

Also, how many genes do you think are added every 100 years to the average human genome? every 1000? If you give any answer to that, provide a source.

Genes are far less mystical if you get to know them...tee hee.