To expand slightly:

"biological materials…whether isolated or purified or not and however made, which are identical or substantially identical to such materials as they exist in nature....biological materials, in section 18, includes DNA, RNA, proteins, cells and fluids."

My first concern regarding the amendment in the term "substantially identical" How is this to be defined? Identical to whom? Due to the natural variation in human genes, proteins and cells the term "identical" is not easily defined, even without the term "substantially" to confuse things further.

With or without Gene Patents people are going to die.

Its an economic guarantee that in an overcrowded world death will be the big money spinner. Every CEO from arms manufacture to funeral homes will be looking to up-the-ante in 'death' and increase profits.

In all this turmoil, gene patents will just be a sideshow for the greedy and inheritance rich.

The bottom line:

With or without Gene Patents people are going to die. ONLY without those patents they will at least die a lot cheaper and with INDIVIDUALITY and dignity.

Besides gene patent holders gouging $billions out of mum and dads for basic hospital treatments will make great target practice for the dawning urban guerillas that overpopulation is spawning.

Its a brave new world a'coming and there'll be
no place for those wishing to build DNA sand castles unless they are very fast runners.

I do not agree Dr Lavelle.

While you do mix in some good information and make some good points in that patents do not stifle research, that is because they can't. What patents do for the holder is that they give them the right to PREVENT other people from developing that research into marketable product. Patents do not encourage research at all, all the legal wrangling prevents development and delivery to market of a lot of very good research. This virtual monopoly on the right to development also ensures that of the tiny number of potential products that actually make it market are overpriced and generally unaffordable for routine uses.

That is, patents don't stifle research, they stifle development of research to market. For example, how many of those 5,500 publications have been used as the basis of a marketable product? Has BRCA1 screening become cheaper because of this research?

Patents may be currently used to attract funding, but that's only because of the patent system. If you don't have a patent, then someone can lodge one and stop you dead. But what happens when noone CAN have a patent and thus cannot stop your product development? I reckon a lot of smaller companies could develop products without having to spend so much money on lawyers.

You should have a good chat with Dr. Richard Jefferson of Cambia, he'll tell you like it is, without all the emotive language about people dying.

Open access is the only way to go.

There is an agenda here to own existing genes by purely mapping them.It is like the old colonalism,"We own the newly discovered lands because we mapped them first." No consideration is given to those who own the genes or the live in those lands.They will belong to the new global corporate culture.

"With or without Gene Patents people are going to die"

Well said, KAEP, you took the words out of my mouth and I also agree with the rest of what you said. Death should not be considered as an enemy, but living without dignity should.

How presumptuous of the author to claim:

"Undeniably the hope of every Australian would be for a world-class health system that provided timely, safe and cost-effective access to essential treatments and life-enhancing medicines and technologies."

Has the author actually ASKED every Australian before making such a gross generalisation? I for one was never asked about it, nor do I hope for the above.

Arjay

Sorry to interrupt with some facts, but if you'd read the article you would have seen;

"In Australia today naturally-occurring phenomena such as genes are already considered discoveries, not inventions, and therefore are not patentable subject matter"

Your still fighting the last war.

Yuyutsu

I don't think it is presumptuous at all to say that Australians want a world-class health system. I've never anyone argue that our health system is "too good". If you don't understand the point of the health system it is probably best the author did not contact you for your opinion.