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 Bicnarok
New things do deserve patent protection, but not things which were already there like genes, eyeballs or toe nails imo.
fine, then we should not expect to have any new advances in technology or medicine involving genes, eyeballs or toenails.
Think for a second why the Hep C patent price is so high? Is it worth the while of the patent holder to sell it for a price that people aren't willing to pay? of course not. People don't collect patents so that they can stifle research, they collect them to profit from the research. Since selling something for more than people are willing to pay isn't profitable, there is no use.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
You don´t have to be a MD to be able to comment on the subject. I'm not a Professor of science but I can hold my own talking about quantum physics and astronomy. Not all the most intelligent people have letters in front of their name´s🙂
no, you don't have to be, and generally I like to talk about stuff that I am not overly educated in. And the letters normally come after the name, not before...
But there are many things that mr chrichton says that are plainly wrong, and mostly relating to the medical research side of this issue.
Maybe it would be good to point out that there are major benefits to the patent system above the very media friendly abuses. My problem with the article isn't necessarily Chrichton's lack of credentials, it is the fact that he is completly biased, fearmongering, and confusing the problems of patenting genes with private health care. The fact that he is making these assertations in a field completely removed from his specialty makes them that much more laughable. For instance, when I talk smack about quantum physics, I do so knowing that I am not a very good expert in the field. All ideas are not made equal.
but hey, its so much easier to sell "OMFG you are going to die, evil shodowy corporations you can't control or see are planning your doom" than "There is a very complicated and nuanced issue here".
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 inimalistWell, 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.
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 researchthe 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.
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.
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 xmarksthespotThat'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.
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.
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 don´t think "playing God" is a bad thing, its the fact that only a select group can do it. Those who the patent holder allows and those with money who can pay the patent holder off. And seeing as only those with substantial financial backing can Patent a gene in the first place, its a typical mafia scenario.
Hopefully some countries will say bollocks to the patent laws and do what they want. Then maybe countries where people are dieing of Aids, other nasty viruses and starvation can helped without having to pay extortionate prices, seeing as they have no money anyway.
I.e. OMG corporations are profiting. Heavens to mergatroid!
Originally posted by Bardock42I 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.
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 highly doubt any patenting body would grant broad rights over a sequence without stipulations.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I don´t think "playing God" is a bad thing, its the fact that only a select group can do it. Those who the patent holder allows and those with money who can pay the patent holder off. And seeing as only those with substantial financial backing can Patent a gene in the first place, its a typical mafia scenario.Hopefully some countries will say bollocks to the patent laws and do what they want. Then maybe countries where people are dieing of Aids, other nasty viruses and starvation can helped without having to pay extortionate prices, seeing as they have no money anyway.
right, because all those mom and pop aids genetic research facilities are being swept aside by the villanous multi-nationals
I'm sure the university I am at is doing some kind of genetic research, but I would hardly think even it has the capital to invest in major new and breakthrough genetic work. The overhead cost of this research means that only those who are going to see a profit from the product of their labour are willing to put up the money. But of course, corporate control of something couldn't be beneficial, lets bring in the State, cause it knows the score.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
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.
in the spirit of full disclosure though, the same profitability motivation does sometimes stifle research into rare and unmarketable diseases. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I can't imagine a company investing millions into a project that might even be easier than other more common diseases if it is only going to be marketable to 0.000001% of the population.
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 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. 😮