Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Who Wins From Nature's Genetic Bounty? (theguardian.com) 23

Scientists are harvesting genetic data from microorganisms in a North Yorkshire quarry, fueling a global debate over ownership and profit-sharing of natural genetic resources. Researchers from London-based startup Basecamp Research are collecting samples and digitizing genetic codes for sale to AI companies. This practice of trading digital sequencing information (DSI) has become central to biotechnology research and development. The issue will be a focal point at October's COP16 biodiversity summit in Cali, Colombia, The Guardian reports.

Developing nations, home to much of the world's biodiversity, are pushing for a global system requiring companies to pay for genetic data use. Past discoveries underscore the potential value: heat-resistant bacteria crucial for COVID-19 testing and marine organisms used in cancer treatments have generated significant profits. Critics accuse companies of "biopiracy" for commercializing genetic information without compensating source countries. Proposed solutions include a global fund for equitable benefit-sharing, though implementation details remain contentious.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Wins From Nature's Genetic Bounty?

Comments Filter:
  • by The Cat ( 19816 )

    The idea that a country can claim intellectual property rights in genetic data is no different than a company attempting to seize rights in a photograph of a landmark within its borders. Not only does it fly in the face of the entire purpose of intellectual property, it is an attempt to claim rights in a work where any copyright that may have once existed has expired, and even if it were still in effect, genetic material is the property of its ancestor, not the country where it happened to be found.

    This wil

    • by tragedy ( 27079 )

      Unfortunately, there's a thing called the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. It protects unoriginal works under the theory that the work that went into development deserves protection, even if it's not original. Now, that doctrine applies to copyright more than patents, but I can certainly see the courts applying that standard to patents as well. After all, design patents are allowed, and those are an abomination.

      • there's a thing called the "sweat of the brow" doctrine.

        "Sweat of the brow" hasn't been part of American IP law for decades.

        Only creative works are covered by copyright.

        Non-creative works, such as a list of phone numbers, are not protected by copyright.

  • seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday August 29, 2024 @05:45PM (#64747404)

    These countries didn't invent the bacteria living there. Why should they get paid for it? That's a hell of a thing.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Uh, a typical bacteria genome is single digit megabases long, that's under $100 to sequence if you're doing just one and under $10 if you're doing it at scale (a whole bunch of different bacteria).

        • Sequencing the genome is easy.

          Figuring out what each segment does and which are economically useful is harder.

          • Yeah, but the nation isn't doing that part for you. Heck they aren't even doing the sequencing for you or even finding the organisms. Instead, they're making you pay to sequence organisms they didn't even know exist in their territory and then extorting copyright claims over those genomes and ensuing discoveries from it.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      These countries didn't invent the bacteria living there.

      According to Tribble Top, Wuhan labs did just that.

      • That's different. China has the right to charge $1 copyright fee per copy of covid virus in every person that got infected. You didn't take the vaccine and got infected .. you owe the Chinese trillions of dollars for making copies of their virus.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Developing nations are getting exploited because they lack the resources to take advantage of their genetic bounty.

      A biotech company could choose to set up an R&D centre in that country, employ local people, offer them training and partnerships with universities where needed, i.e. invest. They could also share some of the profit. Instead they just take the genetic code back to Europe or the US and turn it into a multi billion euro product.

      You could argue that it's just too bad and those developing natio

  • You want to benefit? Invent something and patent it. Otherwise, fuck off!

  • by galabar ( 518411 )
    Enough said.
  • ...mutual sharing agreement, included data from sequenced DNA. Tracking the source and IP of jillions of critters is just not practical. It's almost as futile & useless as software patents.

  • From TFA:

    The whole question will be around the legality of the Cop decisions,” says Pierre du Plessis, a Namibian negotiator at Cop15 who advises African countries on DSI.

    Nature and wildlife ALWAYS take a backseat to human interests.This is the same Namibia that plans to kill more than 700 animals including elephants and hippos — and distribute the meat to hungry people

    Namibia is planning to kill more than 700 wild animals, including elephants, zebras and hippos, and distribute the meat to the

  • There are only a finite number of permutations of 8 billion bits. The copyright goes to the person discovers one of those permutations has value in a specific context. For now the DNA in some bacteria might have value. Someone is collecting and sequencing that data. Since someone else thinks there is value in that sequence then the first persons data has value and we give them a copyright on it. If we didn't there would be no financial incentive to sequence the DNA in the first place. Now country X co
  • Someone can own the results of their own extraction, but that should present someone else from sequencing the DNA. No one owns nature.
  • by engineer37 ( 6205042 ) on Friday August 30, 2024 @02:05AM (#64748074)
    Can't we just, you know, open source it so that everyone benefits? A radical concept, I know, but I like living in the cutting edge of 1990s ideas.
  • It's great that they mention the Convention on Biological Diversity conference and even link to it, but of course the Guardian can't do a deep enough dive to explain that this sort of thing is by no means "new news" in the multilateral space. The CBD was opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and has been in force for more than 30 years, and one of its key elements is "fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate acce

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...