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.
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.
Intellectual Property (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
These countries didn't invent the bacteria living there. Why should they get paid for it? That's a hell of a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Sequencing the genome is easy.
Figuring out what each segment does and which are economically useful is harder.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
According to Tribble Top, Wuhan labs did just that.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: seriously? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Oh, fuck that! (Score:1)
You want to benefit? Invent something and patent it. Otherwise, fuck off!
No (Score:2)
How about a global (Score:1)
...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.
Namibia? Conservation? (Score:2)
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
The sane way (Score:2)
Public data (Score:2)
Does everything have to have a winner? (Score:3)
UN mention good, but shallow? (Score:2)
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