Genetic Patents Facing Challenge ..., The polarizing views ...

The American Civil Liberties Union is pursuing a lawsuit against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics challenging their right to patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which are linked to breast and ovarian cancer in women.

Here's a small collection of links which discuss aspects of the topic from both sides of the issue:

ACLU story ...
DNAction Blog from Pathway Genomics viewpoint ...
Patent Baristas blog view ... BioTech Lawyer
May 12th NYTimes coverage ...
From Biopolitical Times website
Cap City Liberty Blog ...
Biio-IT World commentary ...

I hope that's somewhat of a representative view of both sides of this important issue.

I have to say that I'm not convinced that DNA research would be stifled by the inability to patent genes. There is a long line of precedent that allows individual genes to be patented but I can't help feeling that doing so infringes somehow on my personage. I certainly don't expect or want some group/company to go broke doing research but at the same time, I'd greatly resent some arbitrary group of stockholders and corporate officers getting filthy rich off some ACGT combination they "discovered". Can't there be some middle ground? Does the "free market" have to get everything it wants? Is there no humanistic egalitarianism in these people?

I certainly want companies to do the research necessary to improve the chances of eliminating cancer. But shouldn't a cancer cure (if one comes) ultimately be in the public domain? Is it really ethical to get rich off of someone else's unfortunate malady?

I realize these are age-old questions. But hope someone here might provide some insight to me as to why I should support corporate ownership of the code that makes me who I am.

I hope (but strongly doubt) that the ACLU prevails. I think.

This post has been edited by uaafanblog on Nov 3 2009, 06:55 AM

Somehow it 'feels' that patenting genes is wrong. Im not sure why i feel this way. I think i agree with uaafanblog in that it infinges on my personage.

Also, if a gene is patented, does that mean that any information as to what that gene does, is also only available to the patent holder?

I believe that's exactly what it means. When a company discovers/defines a gene's purpose and then patents it they have the force of law behind them in determining who has access to it.

It's my understanding that there are more than a few sequences that have been patented without the companies knowing how the sequence can exactly be used. They are essentially sitting on them waiting to figure out how to cash them in.

According to the reading this has been going on for nearly 30 years and is well-accepted practice. No doubt there are varying levels of ethical/unethical degrees of this sort of thing.

I don't want to be a dilettante here about this. I'll fully admit that I've had limited exposure over the years (a couple of documentaries and a few magazine articles).

Here's a video story from some joint called "Grit TV" ... it's only about 10 minutes long.

This post has been edited by uaafanblog on Nov 3 2009, 09:32 AM

Yes, i can see how this has been affecting the food industry for the last decade or so, but i guess i never really thought how deep it was.

Perhaps a solution would be to reduce the life of the patents. Down to maybe a 10 year period.

This post has been edited by Matador on Nov 3 2009, 09:32 AM

Strict limits occurred to me as well. But you'd have to have some wide-spread international agreement I'd think.

I'm sure corporations would (and already are) fighting against any sort of interference from governments.

I don't want to sound all conspiracy-ish or chicken-little by expressing these concerns. Because I'd note some "fringy" claims coming from here and there in the reading/research I've been doing today. But it is clear to me there are some issues that deserve to be examined.

To the extent that each individual organism has its own unique DNA sequence, it is only really possible to patent DNA one organism at a time. Furthermore, I don't think that it is possible to patent the genetic sequence of the organism itself, but only the record derived from its transcription.

Think about it logically. It is possible for anyone to take a picture of the white house. It is also possible to copywrite a photograph made of the white house. Doing so does not mean that anyone else who takes a picture of the white house has to pay someone else to do it because they patented a photo of it first.

Technologies and processes can be patented, too, I think. So a certain technique or technology for analyzing and transcribing DNA code sequence could be patented.

How could anyone patent a sequence for an entire species, or a type of disease, etc.? What would the criteria be for claiming that a DNA transcription from one individual organism is governed by the copywrite of another? No two individuals have the exact same code sequence, do they?

From where I sit, this is a simple matter and not one for much discussion.

Genetic modifications to and certain genes of plants and animals should be allowed to be patented and protected as intellectual property (and only as intellectual property). Genetic modifications to and genes of human beings should not be allowed to be patented at all, while treatments which produce these modifications or alter these genes should be allowed to be patented as drugs, with the same 7 year limit.

It's as simple as that.

They're talking about copyrighting parts of the DNA sequence, not the whole thing. Human DNA is almost identical between organisms. Each DNA sequence is different, but the differences are finite.

Isn't that the same thing as saying that any two photographs of the white house are almost identical, although they are ultimately unique - but "the differences are finite?"

Should someone be able to patent the right to photograph the white house?

As I say this it occurs to me that arguing on this level would promote unpatentability of gene sequences, which would prevent the patents from one day expiring. That would mean that anyone who encoded such a sequence for utilization would potentially keep it secret and the knowledge would never reach the wider public.

Do the ends justify the means, if the means are to deny the underlying truth about the validity of copywrites applying to the transcription or the thing transcribed?

Yes.

This has been done with several historical sites. e.g. The interiors of Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany are copyrighted. Pictures are illegal.

I would agree with you that patenting any natural species' genome is unethical, but the legal ground there is unknown territory. We'll see what the courts decide.

CopyRIGHT
Think "Right to Copy" not "Copy Writing."

Get the fuckout of my thread you stupidtwat.

There's a difference between patenting a gene i.e. BRCA1 and BRCA2 ... and patenting an entire genome (complete DNA sequence). There are examples of complete DNA sequences that have been patented but those are instances where an animal such as a pig have had their DNA resequenced in a specific manner in order to produce a help enzyme or whatever. Chimera's are also obviously patentable and have been for a long time and should be ... they were created by a company and it's scientists. But that isn't what this thread is about ... is it?

I left a clear opening for a counter argument to my assertions. You could have a trillion trillion trillion billion million years to read the links I provided and you wouldn't find the counter to my OP.

You can't fuckingread and you already are well aware that I don't appreciate ANYTHING you have the audacity to spew with your sophist ways. Here's a simple rule for your clusterfucked mind ... you see a thread I started ... staythefuckout. DIG? <--- rhetorical question

This post has been edited by uaafanblog on Nov 3 2009, 07:52 PM

That castle sounds like it is private property. The interior is only accessible by permission of the owner, so it makes sense that the owner would be able to make agreeing not to take pictures a condition of entrance.

Since light emissions/reflections are not yet able to be owned as property, it follows that any light that can be captured from a public location can be used to make a photograph of anything visible from that location.

I'm not even getting into the ethics of it. I'm just looking at the ability to claim that a DNA sequence from one individual organism is similar enough to another to make transcribing some DNA sequence from it a copyright infringement.

I think differentiating ownership of the transcription itself from the thing transcribed struck a nerve with the original poster, judging from him telling me to stay the *** off threads he posts. I wish he would say why. I really don't see what would be offensive or stupid about what I said.

Thanks, I always get that part of the word confused. Luckily I can admit when someone else is write.

First:
It isn't a a thread where "he posts" ... It is a thread/topic that I originated.

Second:
You failed completely to understand the original premise/proposition of the thread. It's a thread about the ethics and/or egalitarianism of a corporation being able to patent a specific gene. Many links were included of which you availed yourself to none. Had you done so you would have gotten a sense of the subject to be discussed.

But instead, in your usual modus operandi, you spewed stupidity that hadn't nothing to do with the proposed discussion. You introduced (as per usual) some ill-conceived poorly framed metaphor that had nothing to do with the topic. You think the subject is about copyrights and you don't even know the definition of the term.

Third:
You have brought nothing substantive to any discussion in this forum (that I've read) since you began posting here. Instead (as I've indicated all too often in other threads) you crap out meaningless sputum-laden sophistry every time your fingers touch the keyboard.

Naturally you wouldn't. Since you're so fond of metaphors ... here's what you've done ...

You walked into a wine only bar and ordered a mixed-drink. The bartender said we don't serve your kind here and we only have wine. So you walked over to the waitress and tried again to order the drink.

So once again ... if you have a single strand of working grey matter then you'll recognize that my request you NEVER post in a thread I start is a reasonable request. Ignore my initially flowery request and substitute this one instead.

Please never post in a thread which I've started. You can tell I've started it when you open the sub-forum and look at the column called "Thread Starter". Failing that ... look at the name of the person who made the first post ... that name indicates the "Thread Starter" as well.

My request does not presume to attempt to dissuade you from posting in threads I didn't start. I wouldn't be so presumptuous. As has already been the case, when you spew stupidity in a thread which happens to garner my interest, I'll be happy to point out the stupidity of what you've said without making the same sort of request as I've done here.

Clear enough? Do you need another metaphor to paint the picture for you?

This post has been edited by uaafanblog on Nov 3 2009, 09:37 PM

1) I would like other opinions on whether you or anyone else starting a thread should have the right to ban certain people from posting on it.

2) The ethical issue of whether and which gene sequences should be patentable is tied to the issue of what the underlying nature of the thing to be patented is. It's like discussing whether it should be legal to have racially exclusive rights and memberships, where there is an underlying issue of whether 'race' is a viable scientific sub-classification for humans at all. Don't bitch that this is another metaphor of mine, because it's not. It's an analogy.

If a gene sequence transcription is copyrighted, but the copyright only refers to the transcription and not the DNA itself, then someone else could create their own transcription and copyright that as well, correct?

If a gene sequence derived from Michael Jackson's body are copyrightable as specific to him and not as a patent of the genetic code of the entire human species, then why would any organism gene sequences be copyrightable as species-code instead of individual-organism code?

Genetic variation is as significant between two unrelated mice as between two unrelated humans, isn't it?


This post has been edited by light in the tunnel on Nov 3 2009, 10:22 PM

dimmest bulb in the darkest part of the universe:
It's a matter of simple decorum and a basic respect. I know you like metaphors but today I'll use a few similes instead. I hope that it's close relation to metaphor allows you to wrap your remaining brain cells around the idea I'm expressing.

The forum is like a big public convention center. Sub-forums within the main structure are like the big rooms hosting various conventioneers interested in the subject within. Inside these big rooms are a variety of vendor booths related to the subject of the room. You won't find computer vendors in the travel sub-forum; they're in the travel-related room. Amongst the vendor booths you find one one that you think interests you and you cross the cordon to participate. But once inside the Macintosh booth all you do is ask questions about why WinDoZE 7 sucks rocks. The Macintosh vendor asks you to leave. Do you?

Of course you don't. Why? Because you don't understand why he wants you to leave?

You see ... in the above example I'm the Macintosh Vendor. At other times, I'm just another convention attendee. In those cases, when I walk into the Sony booth and hear you asking them why WInDOzE 7 sucks rocks, I can easily turn around and leave. Sometimes, I'll laugh out loud at you or tell you to shut up but it's my responsibility to leave when I don't want to see you. Since, I'm hosting this booth though it's my responsibility to participate in the discussion I started.

Unfortunately, the convention center manager doesn't have enough time to identify the all the smelly folks that enter his building. There are just too many of them and some of them emit a much fouler odor than you. It's just that in this case I really hate the smell of sophistry.

Your obstinate insistence and failure to comprehend the purpose of decorum in a public place though ensure this is the last sentence I'll type in this thread.