[deepinthewoods]

if you like 
 
should a buisness be allowed to apply for / be granted, a patent on a human gene?
 
 
 

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/can-human-genes-be-patented-supreme-court-to-decide
 

[Ina]

Without even looking at that - ergh, no.

In fact, I think any genes should not be patentable. Only stuff that's been created by somebody should be treated like "property" - anything that exists naturally should not.



(I hope that makes sense - it does to me, but then I'm nearing the end of a bottle of wine, and I'm just not used to these masses of alcohol any more...  )

[Lesley Silvester]

No

[deepinthewoods]

In fact, I think any genes should not be patentable. Only stuff that's been created by somebody should be treated like "property" - anything that exists naturally should not.

what if youve 'created' those genes by genetically modifying the original human ones?
 
ie,created something that would not exist in nature without your efforts?

[Lesley Silvester]

What reason would there be for genetically modifying human (or animal) genes?

[deepinthewoods]

 thats what 'GM' is.
 
gm corn for example, is maize that has had a gene from a bacteria added, to produce am inherent pesticide .

[jaykay]

The idea that someone might genetically modify humans and then 'own' that modification is pretty scary.

I can see solving genetic disorders, but then to patent and profit from it? No. It needs to stay tightly controlled by an international body, and remain not-for-profit.

[RUSTYME]

An intermational body ? Such as the eu  ?, the who  ?, the un ? , the fda ? All totally corrupt run by theives and murderers .
The basics of life free and not for profit , like water maybe ? , er maybe not , basic medication ? , maybe not . It won't ever happen jk . They will do this and charge us for it . Monsanto are already patenting every plant they can , we will be next .

[bigchicken]

I wonder what perfect human they will use as the original basis, they are mad mind you if there is money to be made, no that cant be, or maybe,   holly s**t no no no never !.

[happygolucky]

I am a Gemini and not sure if that has an influence but I am in 2 minds, one do not meddle  with what was created and 2 as a want to be scientist, my brother and daughter are!! and I only helped out in upper Schools but I would if I could and had the brain, anyway, as a want to be Scientist I would want to patent any gene I had created!!! the issue is indeed 2 sided!!

[Small Farmer]

Yes and no.


It takes a lot of money to develop a new gene and all governments are short of money.  But the agrochemical and drug companies lack the ethical standards to be allowed free reign on the patents. I'm very happy with what Rothhamsted does for all of us but deeply distrustful of anything Monsanto does for itself.

[Ina]

what if youve 'created' those genes by genetically modifying the original human ones?
 
ie,created something that would not exist in nature without your efforts?

Ah - but I would not allow any human genes to be meddled with in the first place, anyway...

I don't even think any plant varieties, for example, that have been "created" by old fashioned breeding, should be patentable. And certainly no plants from the wild should be patented like some companies try to do - companies that suddenly "discover" the commercial value of a wild plant that's been used for medicinal purposes by local people for centuries...

In actual fact, I think this entire patenting business is wrong. So somebody has a good idea - great. Let's spread it around so that a maximum number of people have the benefit. (I suppose we have to turn to genuine communism to get everybody to adopt altruism big style! Fat chance of that to happen...)

[deepinthewoods]

quoted from the new york times
 
''
The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said that their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated. “Myriad and other gene patent holders have gained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,” the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in their petition seeking review. They added that the patents “prevent patients from examining their own genetic information” and “made it impossible to obtain second opinions.” ''
 
it would appear that the point has already been reached that the patents already privatley owned by companies are enough to legally restrict you from examining your own.
 
crops have been ever improved by careful and selective breeding, leeding to 'ownership' of the rights to that crop, 'rooster' potatoes as an example.
it would appear that humans are being viewed as a 'crop' as well. i hope the judge gets the right answer.

[MAK]

No is my answer but I feel that we are too late.
My take on this is that patents of genes that have been isolated as disease specific carriers have been issued by the US gov. I think that they have a list of genetic diseases that they will issue an isolated gene patent against. Such genes are already used to create animal models for the testing of drugs. This is big bucks and it is obvious that ownership of a gene will restrict the research and development of new therapies by other drug companies. These genes will include common diseases such as breasts cancer, types of muscular dystrophy, heart disease, cystic fibrosis, immune diseases etc etc
I guess that following on from making animal models of a disease is the use of modified genes and DNA to use as gene therapy. eg as in Cystic fibrosis.
Quote from the NIH Human Genome web site:
"The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the agency that issues patents in the United States, has developed guidelines on the patenting of genetic discoveries. The current guidelines state that identification of a gene's sequence alone is not patentable, but that a gene isolated from its natural state may be patentable if the applicants can demonstrate "specific, substantial and credible utility" for the discovery".

[Small Farmer]

In actual fact, I think this entire patenting business is wrong. So somebody has a good idea - great. Let's spread it around so that a maximum number of people have the benefit. (I suppose we have to turn to genuine communism to get everybody to adopt altruism big style! Fat chance of that to happen...)

There's a lot wrong with patenting.  Some companies buy others so they can bury the technology and others patent stupid stuff like that war between Apple and Samsung.  I have a small involvement with a company which has an incredible breakthrough which they are only prepared to talk about not to patent.  If you patent an idea it tells the rest of the world how to steal it and rip you off.