New Technique Makes Most Gene Patents Irrelevant 225
Billy the Mountain writes "This Scientific American article, Legal Circumvention, describes a technique for circumventing gene patents whereby living cells are coaxed into expressing genes, especially those genes currently held under patents. Although, would-be exploiters of genes are prevented by patent restrictions from constructing a particular sequence and replicating it, patent law cannot be enforced in instances where an existing cell or organism is caused to express any of these patented genes and proteins."
Gene Patents? (Score:1)
"Hey, isn't that auburn hair? My company patented that! You owe us $500,000 or else you need to cut off that hair."
Re:Gene Patents? (Score:1)
Internet routes around damage. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Internet routes around damage. (Score:5, Funny)
(That explains the stirrings in my pants...)
Re:Internet routes around damage. (Score:1)
Machining Parts (Score:4, Interesting)
I think not...
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2, Funny)
48565078965739782930984189469428613770744208735
An illegal prime number
Re:Machining Parts (Score:1)
Hopefully one day an already established constant can become illegal for also being a decoder, etc. that'd be great
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2)
I always get a kick out of reading that USC code. Anyone else see the movie with Jonathan Silverman, Helen Slater, and Martin Landau, "12:01"? Day repeating, like Groundhog Day, but with a science to it.
Seeing the USC 1201 constantly reminds me that at this very moment, we could already be trapped in the "time bounce" (the wonderful technical term ;-).
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2, Informative)
We would call them ribosomes [nih.gov]. :)
Re:Machining Parts (Score:2, Informative)
The $1000000 question (literally) (Score:1)
Re:The $1000000 question (literally) (Score:2, Insightful)
Bye, Pat
Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)
-Sean
No price is enough; other stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they have no friggin' idea what that license is worth. If they need money, they say "yes." If they're flush with venture capital, and even in this downturn, they are, they just say "no." If you come back with a ridiculous offer, they'd take it anyway, but they just won't deal for a reasonable price because, to them, it's a poor gamble. They've no reason to sell these things, and they know they've got value - because you want 'em. Alternatively, they may be using that gene patent to maintain a monopoly on some drug or treatment. No way they're going to license it to you (for a reasonable amount, once again) so that you can compete with them.
There was a plan by a colleague over at Cornell to do something pro-social with genetic engineering - I think it involved genetically engineering some tropical fruit (Mangos?) to retard spoilage. Whatever it was, it solved an economic problem for poor farmers on Pacific islands. Anyway, they had a way to do it but it involved a bunch of patented genes and processes. Funny thing was, these patents were sitting idle, unused by their owners. However, the owners of these patents wouldn't sell licenses because they had no idea of the value of what they were giving out. So, when in doubt, they refused.
A lot of these gene patenting outfits are (largely failed, because they've patented genes no one really wants) extortion rings. They're actually easier to deal with, since their gene patents are often legally weak, and they don't want to price themselves out of the market.
Discussing this technology itself - this isn't new. We new about zinc finger proteins when I took freshman biology, that would have been seven years ago.
Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, Calif., has made about a fourth of them to bypass patent restrictions by using its "zinc finger protein" transcription factors, proteins that turn genes on and off.
The implication of this sentence is that zinc finger proteins are an innovation developed or discovered by Sangamo. This is not the case.
Athersys didn't develop their technique, either (not implied by the article,) although I've only heard of it used in the past to turn random genes OFF.
Objective or subjective? (Score:3, Interesting)
A company loath to license patents is certainly well within their rights when facing a competitor who threatens to use the licensed patent to take away profits from the patent holder. If a biotech company came up with a cold remedy in their research and it was immediately useful in their serums, they would be fools to license the patent to another cold medicine-making company. However, if someone saw in the patent a path that could possibly lead to the cure for emphysema and needed to license the patent in order to build upon the original research, the company (whose main business is making cough rememdies) would be ethically challenged if they didn't license the patent. In the cases you cited above, the companies acted unethically, abusing their patents by not using them and not allowing them to be used.
Patents are meant to allow the creators a way to make a profit on their hard work and to facilitate the advancement of science by encouraging patent reuse instead of constant reimplementation. When a company does not use the patent for either of these purposes, the patent is worse than worthless because it actually becomes an hindrance to scientific progress.
A government-based arbitration system to whom a scorned patent licensee-to-be can appeal and have their case reviewed by a panel of qualified judges would provide the necessary Subjective viewpoint necessary to make patent licensing decisions on a case by case basis. The best decisions would be those that sought to properly recompense the patent holder without stripping the licensee dry.
Obviously this has the possibility of misuse written all over it, but so does the legal system. It also smacks of socialist tampering, but in reality it is simply an extension of the patent concept of promoting the arts and sciences.
The concept of patents is not broken, only the system used to award them and the companies that hoard them for no use but to crimp research areas. A system that could arbitrate disagreements subjectively would go far in prying open patents that are closed for no reason. Such a system could have opened the door to your colleague's mango research project and made a decent return on investment for the patent holder. Unfortunately, no one has the new mangoes, and the company has gained nothing from their patent.
Re:Objective or subjective? (Score:2)
No. In America at least, patents are:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
(The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, section 8) [cornell.edu]
Re:Objective or subjective? (Score:1)
Can you tell me how my interpretation contradicts the letter of the law?
Re:Objective or subjective? (Score:3, Insightful)
The letter of the law says nothing about financial profit. Profit can only be seen as a possible by-product of the temporary monopoly that can be granted in this case.
Once people start thinking in terms of patents and copyright being there to generate profit for inventors and authors, laws such as the DMCA start to be passed.
I think on the whole, we probably agree with there being a problem of patents being used to stifle scientific advancement. The thing is, though, copyrights and patents are being routinely used to simply keep the cash flowing in.
Look at what's happening now with crippled CD's [slashdot.org]? Or the Bnetd fiasco? [slashdot.org].
Copy Protection anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or worse, Company A not release their cure for cancer until they have found a way of having it not be undone by this technique?
But, um... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Copy Protection anyone? (Score:2)
Yes, and you are the floppy disk.
Re:Copy Protection anyone? (Score:2)
This sentance shows that you've bought the propoganda that the pro gene patenting companies have been spinning. Gene patents are not drugs, they may be useful for creating drugs, but an actual drug would be independently patentable. In fact, the existence of gene patents simply makes it impossible for anybody else to develop the drugs unless they pay extortionate fees to the carpet baggers. It's a lot easier to obtain a gene patent than to figure out what to do with it.
Re:Copy Protection anyone? (Score:2)
And you thought doctors and scientists cared for peoples well being...
Re:Copy Protection anyone? (Score:2)
DMCA to the rescue (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DMCA to the rescue (Score:2)
Personally, I'm frightened of the fact that the "whatever a living organism produces can't be forbidden" idea, because that brings basic biological freedoms against the profiteers, and the battle lines are drawn.
Re:DMCA to the rescue (Score:2)
I guess, deep down inside, I can't fathom just how stupid our lawmakers are that they continue to legislate and adjudicate on matters which they are completely ignorant. If I attempted to practice law, I'd be arrested and charged... but it seems its OK for elected officials to make decisions about issues where they have NONE of the requisite background whatsoever. This worked well hundreds of years ago when it was possible for one person to be reasonably well educated in a truly generaly sense...
I suppose my secret hope is that someone will finally realize, hey.. I really don't know enough about this to be [making new law/interpreting old law in this context/issuing a patent for this] and make a move towards maybe changing the system. I suppose thats pretty optimistic though (where `optimistic' is read `outrageously naive'.
In the end, as you pointed out... we're a cash-ocracy. Money == Power. Period. And we all know that the big pharmaceuticals companies aren't exactly strapped for cash...
So much wasted time (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it make more sense to license the technology (yes, even genetic enhancements) and build upon it rather than trying to redo it from scratch?
Re:So much wasted time (Score:2)
Wouldnt it make even more sense to not grant patents on genes in the first place, since rather than promoting progress they appear to throw up roadblocks that have to be worked around?
Too bad (Score:2, Troll)
This kind of technique, clever as it is, will most certainly stifle innovation in the biotech industry as companies and investors will choose not to fund promising research because they will understand, more clearly than ever now in an era of DeCSS and Kazaa Lite, that any yahoo using this technique will be able to reverse-engineer a carefully developed gene sequence simply and cheaply.
It's a good thing I don't have Parkinson's disease, or another serious illness that genomic therapy might be able to solve, given a few more years and the environment of innovation necessary to promote such promising research. Investors will simply take their money elsewhere, and the great cures of the twenty-first century will go unfound. By the time I'm old enough to need such therapy (I'm only 41) I suspect this unwise loophole will have been closed.
Why gene patents are an intellectual insult (Rant) (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that a method of extracting or purifying a gene consists of an invention, worthy of patent, in and of itself. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal it accomplishes, 2. the unique advances made to achieve that goal. Keep this in mind as I raise the next point.
Now, let us consider two microprocessor designs, each of which is patented seperately; an Intel 8286 and a Motorola 68020, say. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal each of these devices accomplishes (which are, I will assume from here on out, the same,) and 2. the unique advances each devices incorporates in an effort to achieve that goal.
So, Intel has patented an arrangement of transistors and other components intended to do digital computations; it generates less heat per fetch-execute cycle than its predecessor the 8186(I don't actually know that - I'm just assuming). Motorola then comes along and patents another microprocessor design which is totally different, but it, too, generates less heat per cycle than it's predecessor (the 68010, if I remember correctly). Has Motorola violated Intel's patent on processors that generate less heat? Has AMD violated Intel's patent on processors that are fast? Cheap to manufacture? No; in order to violate Intel's patent you need to replicate (at the very least) some identifiable element of their unique design.
Back to genes. Amgen has patented a means of achieving a desired end - the purification of some protein. If I come along and achieve the same end, by some other technique, I'm violating their patent. EVEN IF, and this is important, I use none of their actual inventions at all! I am violating their patent because I am seeking the same end.
This article highlights a practical fallacy in gene patenting (as opposed to an intellectual one). Genes, which are not the only important kind of DNA, are impotant only because they make proteins. Therefore, in order to make gene-patenting worthwhile, you have to control the protein product. In the case of a gene that makes something found in normal healthy people this is an absurd notion - not that this will stop Amgen from trying.
Patenting genes that cause diseases is a seperate intellectual fallacy that deserved coverage in it's own right.
This is like patenting the act of killing germs. If a disease is caused by an abnormal (mutant) protein, than the only true cure is to fix that protein - replace it with functional protein, or remove those cells generating the harmful protein, according to the particular condition. The same argument applies to gene-products (proteins) that cause elevated risk for cancer, heart disease and the like. A patent on the gene is basically a patent on all possible cures for that condition/predilection. A gene that causes a predilection for breast cancer should be viewed as a condition in and of itself (which needs to be at least treated,) and not as some part of a particular treatment for breast cancer.
Finally, I should say our genomes, not just collectively, but individually, are the property of the human race. In a biological sense, they ARE the human race.
Bees are generally black and yellow, and have poisonous stingers. Individual bees, however black or yellow they may be, and poisonous their stingers may be, are all 100% bees - they all possess an equal allotment of beeness. Likewise, the quality of humanity is 100% endowed to each of us.
However, it does not arise from any of us individually. We are all human only because the entire human species exists. The genome of any individual person is NOT sufficient to specify the human race; the genetic diversity of your fellow human beings is part and parcel of YOUR fundamental human identity.
The same is true, in fact, of the genetic diveristy of all known living things, who are our cousins.
Many people have a viceral objection to the idea of a gene being owned. Certain of my colleagues are fond of implying that this arises from some degree of scientific ignorance on their part, or a lack of appreciation for the effort that goes into doing molecular biology. I am a molecular biologist myself, fully cognicant of the hard work that is done. I understand all of that quite well, but I come to the same viceral conclusion: you cannot that which makes us human.
Also, the parent is really funny. Mod it up.
Re:Why gene patents are an intellectual insult (Ra (Score:1)
Re:Why gene patents are an intellectual insult (Ra (Score:2)
It is important to note that the physical layout falls under copyright law, not patent law, in most cases. The electrical arrangement however, can be patented. Thus with chip design, you are dealing with two IP laws.
Imagine if gene sequences could be copyrighted, too.
In a way, that could be good.
'Your gene sequence includes a significant amount of my gene sequence, and is therefore a derived work. Under the GGPL (GNU Genetic Public License), you MUST give out the source!"
Maybe not, though.
Re:Why gene patents are an intellectual insult (Ra (Score:2)
Re:Why gene patents are an intellectual insult (Ra (Score:1)
But a gene is not a drug. It might make more sense to patent a drug which regulates a gene's expression. It might make sense to patent a specific molecule which serves a specific purpose. But a gene is essentially a statistical statement of a biological law: it says, "when X is on, there's R% chance of doing Y" (where R may be 100). Patenting a gene is like patenting quantum mechanics, or Newton's Laws. It's just dumb.
Personally, I think that the whole concept of intellectual property really needs to be Thought Out Correctly, by intelligent people who are relatively disinterested in the outcome. This is just more evidence for it.
Re:Too bad (Score:2)
Companies can always patent their final therapy, and there's very little that can be done to get around those patents outside of violating the patent outright. Gene patents, on the other hand, simply block other groups from doing research. This includes research done with your tax dollars, that isn't getting done because some biotech patented genes it can't even use.
Finally, just as much real innovation goes on in academia (biotechs end up getting commercial rights- the arrangement has its problems but is generally good for the public). We should eliminate gene patents, and double the NIH budget. (Getting university administrators to stop skimming off the top of research grants would be good too- I'm sure someone else here knows what I'm talking about.)
If Only There Was... (Score:1)
- Important information of genes/genetics are put to good use by being shared with geneologists around the world.
- More time can be spent on producing cures for critical deseases instead of patenting genes that you found.
- What if someone found a cure for genetically-linked desease, but can't make the formulae public, because the genes that need to be altered is patented to some other guy?
Personally I think that scientists should put the needs of mankind first before succumbing to the influence of the almighty buck.Re:If Only There Was... (Score:2)
Second of all, I take issue with your issue that all scientists should put the needs of mankind first. Most postdocs make $30-40k/year and work 50-80 hours a week. Think about that. We're talking about 4 years of undergraduate work, followed by at least 5 years of graduate work just to get to the aforementioned position. Can you blame some people for putting their own needs before the needs of mankind? Personally, I've chosen not to go into industry. But I'm not about to demonize everyone that does simply because they want a more comfortable and less stressful lifestyle.
Gene patents still not irrelevent... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gene patents still not irrelevent... (Score:2)
That's interesting... what if I design a gene that no one has ever discovered before, so I get the patent, and start using it in a product. However, suppose that later this same gene appeared due to a mutation. The mutation is a natural process. Would another company be able to steal my design now?
I just don't think you can separate designed genes from naturally occurring ones, because any gene could occur in nature, given enough time. You also can't prove that the gene doesn't already exist in nature, and we just haven't found it.
Proof the IP is dead (Score:4, Interesting)
The relevant issue here is... (Score:5, Funny)
Not any more! (Score:2)
Re:The universal patent (Score:1)
These filters should filter against small snippets of copyrighted works.
This however introduces a new problem. Snippets of a certain length are protected by copyright. Shorter snippets should not be filtered. So the filter database should contain snippets that are long enough so that you cannot distribute them freely.
Then it's illegal to distribute the filter database freely. So in order to filter a random generator, you have to buy the filter database with all copyrighted works.
amgen vs. tkt (Score:2, Interesting)
basically, amgen has composition of matters patent on epo, both the sequence (which causes it's production in bacteria) and the protein (which is the stuff actually injected into the patient).
tkt caused cells to produce epo w/o using the epo sequence to coerce bacteria into producing it -- instead they coerced cells into producing it, without ever introducing the epo sequence into those cells. they then harvested the epo protein and (wanted to) sell it for serious $$$.
the court found that tkt did not violate amgen's sequence patent but did violate amgen's patent on the protein. hence, tkt did not have a product.
now, if tkt or anybody else came up with a compound which increases the endogenous production of epo, it's widely believed that neither the sequence patent or the protein patent would be infringed.
the difference is that such an "endogenous upregulator" would never require collecting and administering the protein (which has a composition of matter patent associated with it).
but this is no big deal. it's been known for some time. my company focuses on drugs that regulate gene expression. nonetheless, nobody has ever found such a magic epo upregulator, and with $2b in sales, you can bet people are trying.
Re:amgen vs. tkt (Score:1)
tkt caused cells to produce epo w/o using the epo sequence to coerce bacteria into producing it -- instead they coerced cells into producing it, without ever introducing the epo sequence into those cells. they then harvested the epo protein and (wanted to) sell it for serious $$$.
I'm not being argumentative, but, how can Amgen patent a protein that has been "made" by "Nature" (vis-a-vis gene splicing, molecular engineering, etc./whatever by humans). I understand that tkt coerced the bacteria; however, I don't think that should disqualify tkt's protein. What if Amgen patented Protein X and tkt, instead of coercing bacteria to make PX, found an previously-unknown spieces of bacteria that produced Protein X? I tried to use an example that wasn't too contrived; I'm assuming a finite set of proteins (based on current tech and what bateria can produce) and that administrating the protein is no more complicated that a needle prick. Granted, IANAL, (I assume) YANAL, etc.
-MKD
Re:amgen vs. tkt (Score:2)
Oh my God (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the neatest features of patent law is that it encourages lots of experimentation; if you need to do something, and there is a patented way to do this thing, and you can't afford to license the patent or the patent owner refuses to license it, this isn't that much of a problem; you just find an alternate way to do the thing, enlightened by your knowledge of how the current patent holders do it, and then patent your version. Today's overly broad patents prevent this; rather than creating cycles where technologies in a given industry iteratively improve as each company innovates new things and patents them (and the other companies look at the public details of the patent filing and try to find better ways of doing the same innovation) today's patents create dead ends; places where technology may no longer advance except with the permission of a certain company.
Because the main problem with the unjust patents of today-- software patents, business model patents, gene patents-- is that they cover a goal, not a methodology. Indeed, these patents are not just overly broad, they miss the point entirely; they cover concepts, while patent law was only ever intended to cover implementations of concepts.
Just a thought.
Re:Oh my God (Score:4, Insightful)
OK.. when science is having to develop new methods which have absolutely no practical value other than to dodge patent laws, you know the patent law is completely unjust.
Patent laws gave birth to the corporate research lab. Let's have some perspective here, shall we?
Re:Oh my God (Score:2)
Patent laws gave birth to the corporate research lab. Let's have some perspective here, shall we?
Seems reasonable enough to me. All things in moderation and all that. Just because the idea of patents happens to be a pretty good one, doesn't mean that the system hasn't been perverted and abused to the detriment of scientific progress.
Re:Oh my God (Score:1)
There are lots of patent laws. Some of them are unjust. Some of them are beneficial. Some of them are both, and some of these could be rewritten to become just without removing their public benefit.
I don't see how you're making any kind of point here. Just because something has caused at least one good thing to happen as a side-effect doesn't mean it is overall a good thing, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement.
Re:Oh my God (Score:2)
You see, corporate research labs are exactly that: corporate research. Their primary concern is how to make money. The vast majority of basic research is done by . . . hmm let's see oh yeah that's right universities. And at the universities who does the actual footwork? Yes, it's true the lions share of research in every scientific field including biotech and computers is done by graduate students who work for . . . grades, ie mere recognition. Hmm. What is this? Communism?
Re:Oh my God (Score:1)
not that I don't agree with you that things are out of control, but I don't think this is a great argument for that. this development provides better ammunition for supporters of the current system, imo...
I do like your last paragraph and agree wholeheartedly. (the one before "Just a thought," though I guess I can't disagree with that one either...)
Genetically modified seeds? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's under appeal, but doesn't look good. The GM Canola apparently spreads like a weed and is growing everywhere. And once it hits your property, Monsanto claims the right to rip up your crop if you don't pay them for a patent license. The best general overview I've seen is the 169k pdf file linked from here [percyschmeiser.com].
If the Scientific American article is correct, it looks like US patent law is (for once) less screwed up than at least part of the rest of the world's.
Re:Genetically modified seeds? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Genetically modified seeds? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Genetically modified seeds? (Score:1)
Sort of like a huge discussion 'what if Linus Torvalds were hired by Microsoft?'
It gives pundits all sorts of hand waving opportunities to make their point and rant their rants, but it's not productive for a real discussion.
Discussing Hypothetical Situations is Necessary (Score:2)
Here's some basic criteria for determining whether a scenerio is worth discussing. (If you answer yes, it's worth discussing)
1. Is the scenerio likely?
2. Can the scenerio be used to circumvent the law either ligitimately or illigitmately?
Imagine what would have happened to the PC industry if they hadn't discussed the hypothetical situation in which they could circumvent the copyprotection of the IBM PC's BIOS, thus ushering the PC clone revolution.
This is no different...
I meant to say copyrighted not copy protected... (Score:2)
Then I read my parent post...
Re:Genetically modified seeds? (Score:2)
forget it (Score:1)
hrmm (Score:1)
The whole idea of "patents" on genes is bullshit! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is simply no legitimate reason why anyone should be granted a patent on a gene....perhaps they COULD get a patent on a particular piece of equipment, for the purpose of making a particular set of proteins. That's a legit patent, you know,
"equipment/process for doing something novel" and "for the advancement of the usfull arts" kinda stuff...either way, it's NOT for something that's either an idea or just simply a fact of nature.
Yeah, I've heard the drug companies arguments too..."we spent sooooo much money finding out what this gene does...", blah..blah...blah...it's still bullshit unless you found some cool way of making "special protein sequence #27(tm)." You cannot get a patent for simply proving it's existance and/function in nature. That's the patent rule..
I say these other "bio-pirate" companies should absolutely PLUNDER these stupid "patent holders"...
...You can't own the ideas in this conceptual land rush, you just gotta fill you brain up fast as you can and stay on your feet....
Does this apply to copyright also? (Score:2)
Re:Does this apply to copyright also? (Score:2)
Shhhhh! (Score:2)
Reverse Engineering? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. (Score:4, Funny)
Patents are stupid!!! Copyright sucks!!! Trademarks are crap!!! Ban intellectual property!!! Screw the establishment!!!
Patent pending. Copyright (c) 2002, rice_burners_suck. All rights reserved. "Patents are stupid!!! Copyright sucks!!! Trademarks are crap!!! Ban intellectual property!!! Screw the establishment!!!" is a registered trademark of rice_burners_suck. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This flamebait is protected by U.S. copyright law and international treaty. Do not make illegal copies of this flamebait. All violations are punishable by death per subparagraph 3,939,112 of DMCA XP 2004.Law Offices of Rice, Burners and Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
What lovely irony (Score:2)
Now if only someone could do the same for software patents, and release it under the GPL.
Some people must be mad... (Score:1, Funny)
oh wait....
Good. (Score:2)
'Bout time God did something about all of this patent nonsense. I was getting worried.
No loophole there (Score:3, Funny)
Are they kidding? If it's alive a really good lawyer will find a way to sue it. Heh, heh.
An interpretation of the process (Score:2, Interesting)
Is basically analogous to having a copy of the source code and each time a monkey spits out a page, we look at it and see if it's a match to the page we are holding.
Then the conclusion is drawn that if we can get it by some other way than actually copying it from the original, then we can use it.
Another example of this technique is that lets say I have the complete specs for an algorithim for an encryption technique, lets call it CSS. And I decide to not copy it, but derive my own program from this knowledge that I have of the specs.... is that new program legal? Ask the courts... I still think that Jon kid is still in deep water for it.
steve
Re:An interpretation of the process (Score:2)
When you've completed your randomly generated sequence of bytes, you have an exact copy of the original, but you haven't copied it, have you?
Would this stand a hope in hell of standing up in court?
Regards, Ralph.
Re:An interpretation of the process (Score:1)
steve
what a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
All purification techniques are basically the same. There are basically say about 20 ways to purify a protein (i.e., by size when folded, size when denatured, charge, substrate binding, shape, pH, hydrophobicity, genetically fusing the protein to a tag such as GST and using affinity for that tag to purify, etc). Any procedure used to purify a protein not-before-purified is simply the right implementation of these processes. This is something which takes a while (usually about a year, reserved for grad. students) to get right, because you basically have to have an assay for your protein activity and find a way to purify the protein via these methods by trial and error; you can tell how pure the protein is by measuring activity levels.
In other words, there is NO NEW technique that anyone invents now-a-days when purifying a protein. People figure out new applications and combinations of old techniques, or new specific implementations. However, these are NOT new techniques themselves (i.e., often times, the new implementation may be running the purification at pH 6 rather than pH 7). They are certainly not worthy of patents.
Of course, the greed of biotech companies and the gneral plundering of science knows no limit in the corporate world. They aren't real scientists. Like there are basketball players who play for the love of the game (i.e., Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird), and then there's the guys who play and its all about themselves and making money (i.e., Allen Iverson and Latrell Sprewell). Same thing with biology. There are real scientists who do what they do for the love of science (i.e., Watson and Crick, Rosalin Franklin), and then there's scientists who are all about their own ego and making money (i.e., Creig Ventor).
Had scientists realized that their discoveries would be used as the basis for patents restricting the progress of science, they would have thought up the idea of patent-left, and forced anything based off their ideas to remain free for all to use.
When Linus Pauling pioneered the first protein techniques, he assumed that any modifications to his techniques would be made freely available for all; that was the culture of science. When Rosalin Franklin, Watson, and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they assumed that the knowledge and benefits gained resulting from the knowledge of that structure would be made freely available to all; that was the culture of science. In most scientists minds today, that is still the assumption. Unfortunately, due to proprietary parasites on the scientific community, that assumption is invalid. These proprietary parasites are not members of the scientific community -- they are parasites on it. They add nothing or very little, and hurt the community at large. They are much like the corporate raiders of the net today, who have become a plague to *our* internet.
The scientific community needs to wake up and disinfect itself of these parasites. The scientific community should start copylefting publications and patent-lefting inventions.
Re:what a joke (Score:2)
Re:what a joke (Score:2)
Re:what a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the wealthy idealists, there are lots of those, and some have a shitload of money. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Keck Foundation are two of the most prominent. The HHMI gives out so much money that professors under its wing are officially both "Professor of and HHMI Principal Investigator". Good stuff.
Re:what a joke (Score:2)
I don't disagree with your main points, but I think we shouldn't kid ourselves about the true motivations of respected scientists. They follow the altruistic conventions of the scientific community because they know it will afford them respect and goodwill. A lot of our top scientists are really egomaniacs like Wolfram at heart.
Aren't we all found in nature? (Score:1)
Always had an issue with that statement.
Well, Gee, Aren't we all found in nature? Are humans natural? Is what nature does natural? Then isn't it reasonable to assume that anything humans do is also natural?
Even if some gene just happened into existence because humans engineered it (cleaned it up, etc.,) then its existence in nature is achieved by natural means, ie: humans.
Most recent intellectual patents are really dumb anyway.
Re:Aren't we all found in nature? (Score:2)
Go to a natural foods store... $10 says you'll find Tofu. Is Tofu any more natural than a hotdog? I don't think so.. they're both processed foods.
So when they say natural they really mean "whatever I want it to mean".
Speaking as a molecular geneticist... (Score:2, Insightful)
Gene patents will be justifiably enforceable when gene products (ie. proteins) or closely-related elements are used as therapeutics. If I clone a tumor suppressor gene and use that gene to make a protein which kills tumors when intravenously injected, I deserve patent protection.
If I make a product which exploits the gene sequence, such as antisense RNA, I also deserve patent protection.
If I express the protein, generate an antibody against that protein, and introduce it as a product, I also deserve patent protection.
Those who reflexively assert that "These are my goldarn genes, yoo kant patent me yoo nazi!" need to do some more reading.
Re:Speaking as a molecular geneticist... (Score:3, Interesting)
You _deserve_ nothing. Patents are a fiction that's been made up to promote the development of science for the benefit of society. The benefit to society is the basic justification of patents, and that benefit is by now very doubtful. Perhaps society would be better served by removing patent protection entirely and funding development in alternative ways. The inability of the medical industry to handle the ethical burdens of the issues may eventually make that necessary.
In practice I agree that specific methods should be patentable. Your specific method to clone a tumor suppressor gene should be patentable but anyone should likewise be able to devise other, cheaper, methods to clone the same gene. This is how traditional patents have worked. You can patent the specific method to do something, which is far less damaging than being able to patent what amounts to the actual goal. And only, _only_, if these are non-obvious methods to a person with experience in the field. That is, if you're racing against someone else to develop a specific method first, forget it. It's _obviously_ not inventive and 'deserving' of patent protection, or there wouldnt _be_ a race.
Gene patenting - corporate terrorism (Score:1)
The scenario is (hopefully still many years away, but) this: Company M gets a patent for a gene to confer immunity to some virus V. Company M then release grain strain G that resists all kinds of herbicidal drugs, but also has a high susceptibility to virus V. G gets out into the wild (accidentally, ha ha), and because of superior engineering, spreads and dominates grain fields throughout the world. Suddenly, through a "random change" in the biosphere, humans all over the world are exposed to virus V. The only known cure involves the gene patented by company M. So everyone has to buy their tablets from company M every week. Of course, the tablets are priced to cost 75% of the average American's salary -- after all, what is your life worth (and who cares about people in other countries, anyway -- they have no money)?
The only reasonable response from any government is to invalidate the patent, and send all the corporate executives to prison where they will earn the nickname "Flexible Betty". Meanwhile, billions of people die because company M is legally bound to maximize profits to their stockholders, and it's just not fiscally responsible to give the drugs out for free. Ultimately, governments everywhere realize that allowing patents on genetic material is a bad idea. So eventually the system regulates itself, but in the meantime a large number of people die so that a minority can increase the value of their portfolios. Makes me think that stockholders should, as owners, be held legally responsible for the behavior of the companies they own, but that's another post in itself.
Heh, heh, heh... (Score:1)
"Wait, it's patented."
"Enh, we'll just reverse-engineer it from the neighbors."
Gene-swapping is BORN!
The Genes Usually aren't Naturally Ocurring (Score:1)
Patenting genes.... (Score:1)
Hmm. That's it, I'm patenting the Laws of Thermodynamics. Now you have to continue attempting to make a perpetual motion machine, because if you use my laws to find out that it's impossible, you have to pay me royalties! Ha!
Bleh. Patenting something created in nature is... ugh. Let's patent the leaf next!
Re:Patent Genes? (Score:1)
Re:Patent Genes? (Score:2, Insightful)
any molecule that we can put together almost certainly exists (by accident) in the world already. take aspirin. it was (more or less) in tree bark already. ditto for digitalis.
basically, it's a cheap shot to say "that existed already"
the quid quo pro is we incentive significant contributions, and people do work they otherwise wouldn't do. in the case of amgen's patent on the epo gene, they figured out a molecule (of dna) that causes bacteria to produce a protein that *cures anemia*. sounds significant to me, even if it once you know the answer you can find it in your own cell.
Re:Patent Genes? (Score:2)
You are not a chemist. Any chemist will tell you that we can create millions of different molecules that do not exist in nature.
Re:Patent Genes? (Score:2, Informative)