Patents on Life (ze science post)

[Chaigidel]

do these people have a right to own these things?
http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=2092
http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/crg.html

[Simetrical]

Well, in a free market research system, it's going to be hard to raise money for gene research if you can't patent the therapies that are based on your results.

[Chaigidel]

yeah but they didnt invent anything, they manipulated what was there. since they did not manufacture the genes or the chemicals from scratch they should not be able to patent it.-- you can patent drugs , you shouldnt be able to patent gene codes

[Simetrical]

They didn't necessarily invent the drug either. Not a few pharmaceutically useful compounds occur naturally (although fewer novel ones now, I guess), but they're still patentable, so that people will try to find them. Same thing here. The genes are only useful because someone invested the money in figuring out what they do.

[Chaigidel]

still any sort of patent on any sort of living thing or the makeup of those living things (specifically dna code) should be off limits to capitalism ( research in these areas would be done with or without capitalism--china has a highly advanced genomics program well before they let any free trade go down.

If they can patent life we should still be paying newtons and einstiens descendants for using gravity and the relativity of time and space--- its ridiculous to be able to own something that exists in nature with or without you ever "discovering" it.

[chris_uk_83]

If they've created a particular type of virus, or have come up with a treatment that they've researched and funded themselves then they should be entitled to patent it. A lot of scientific research is done by private companies that hold on to their intellectual property and don't share it with the world.

Newton and Einstein did their research in an academic sense, meaning that they were funded by academia and therefore had to share everything they did by publishing it. The discoveries they made became public property. However, if they'd come up with a device that had used the principles they'd discovered, they would be well within their rights to patent that device. Then we would be paying their descendants rights for them (as long as the device didn't become so mainstream that it became unpatentable like the TV!).

[Chaigidel]

I would contend that all life is public knowledge, and the restriction or ownership of any of these building blocks of life is ethically wrong.

[ajm317]

Why? Give us an example of an abuse of this power and perhaps I will be more concerned.

[Chaigidel]

I think that the abuse will take place in the future, because its not just cancer fighting agents or bactieria that eat oil its also key neuro transmitters and hormones critical in the operation of the human body--- as I said this is not something that is apparently bad, but I believe will show itself to be a serious problem in the future--


I dont have any immediate evidence other than the idea itself unsettles me slightly :O-- I do think that the idea of owning processes like this would also in the end damage the science associated with them since all things related to them would be motivated by a profit margin rather than the good of humanity.

[ajm317]

Research costs money. The good of humanity does not pay the bills.

[chris_uk_83]

seconded

[Chaigidel]

research often payed for by university--- more useful research is the product of university than of corporate interests...

but all that aside you dont feel any moral revulsion to the idea that someone could own things that make up your very thoughts? that is something I find slighty disturbing but im not really suprised(sp)

[ajm317]

more useful research is the product of university than of corporate interests...

1. No.
2. Not in this field especially.
3. Universities don't pay for anything, except for the professor's salary and "basic facilities" (lab space, electricity etc.). The actual funding comes from either:

a. Private funding (read, industry.)
b. Government grants.

Now the government doesn't just give away money. In order to get funding from them you have to submit a proposal to a commitee. You must demonstrate in this proposal that your research is "interesting" (in particular, more interesting than the other people's research who are applying for the same grant).

Easiest way to demonstrate your research is interesting? Potential industrial applications.

In other words, the good of humanity does not pay the bills.

[Chaigidel]

then answer the ethical question monetary calculations aside: I can see the corporation pays for it because they will benefit

now is it right just because the market allows it?

[ajm317]

Why is it wrong?

[Chaigidel]

read the articles I think they talk about that.

[ajm317]

I read them. Most of their complaints were typical patents are wrong arguments that aren't grounded in reality. The few complaints they had which were relevant to this specific case seemed to boil down to "it's just wrong" which I don't consider a satisfactory explanation.

[Chaigidel]

I got something else out of the articles I suppose its about what you choose to see.

[chris_uk_83]

They're not trying to patent naturally occurring things so why should we worry? If a company learns how to 'build' a particular gene sequence they're entitled to patent that method and the particular thing they've built, as long as it doesn't occur naturally in that state (the articles were clear on that).

If another company learns how to 'build' a mouse with 8 spidery legs then fine, that company 'invented' it, why can't it profit from it? I entirely fail to see the problem with patenting things that you've discovered / built yourself.

[ajm317]

It's also worth pointing out that patents don't last forever.