The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Patently absurd > Comments

Patently absurd : Comments

By Leslie Cannold and Luigi Palombi, published 10/5/2010

The US doesn’t allow human genes to be patented. We shouldn’t either.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
"On the other hand we are facing the question of whether it is reasonable to patent the properties of “a law of nature” and to profit from such a patent."

http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2010/03/30/us-federal-judge-invalidates-gene-patents/

I would agree that it is not ethical to patent a law of nature.

Nor is it ethical for an author to previously describe themselves as feminist and a believer in equality, to only consider the female gender, as in "Among the most high-profile victims of inappropriate patents are women at risk, or suffering from, hereditary breast or ovarian cancer".

Males are also at risk by patenting genes, but this may not be of any consequence to a prejudiced bigot or feminist.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 10 May 2010 10:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree totally. it is fine to patent a test that relies on knowledge of the structure of a gene, since this is a true innovation, as opposed to a discovery. Once we accept that a discovery can be patented, where will it all end? More and more knowledge will get locked up by private interests and not available to serve the common good.
Posted by Michael T, Monday, 10 May 2010 1:10:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would even suggest that a *new* gene with documented discovery including isolation from a random pool is fair enough, and these days, easy enough.

Just walking up and photographing something that is already there is not the same as inventing a new machine or chemical process. Consider the Haber process, or perhaps the effort devoted to untangling the Krebs (triboxcylic acid) cycle. Banks did not *invent* the flora of Australia, merely decribed it. Banting and Best did not *invent* insulin but *did* demonstrate a specific use.

Existing genes were derived from random sequeces and modified by both mutation and natural selection to arrive at current local optima.

Discovering such is laudable, on the order of early cartographers, but is not on par with invention. Invention of new catalysts is not difficult, hence discovery of those existing should not be patentable.

The *use* of an existing gene or gene product is human artifice and therefore worthy of reward. The gene or gene product itself itself is a product of "nature", therefore not the product of artifice and not ethically patentable, though I think specific uses may be. If someone else thinks up another use, good luck to them, and I think IP hearings agree. What the discoverer did not think of cannot be his.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 10 May 2010 11:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"triCARBoxylic acid"

Typo....

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 10 May 2010 11:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need to be careful not to allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by whatever the USA does. So what if they now reckon human genes should not be patented? It is they that lead the world in patenting things so that their greedy businessmen can, by legal trick, claim to own things that they themselves did not invent.

Collectively, through their government, they seem to lead the world in hypocrisy and stupidity on many matters. Take one of today's news items on Al Jazeera that reveals their president is urging them to give $205million to Israel so that Israel can speed up development of an anti-missile defense system. This is the Israel that, by its presence and arrogant behaviour, causes more trouble in the middle east than any other country; the only one in the region to have nuclear weapons; the one which consistently defies UN resolutions, mistreats and murders its Palestinian neighbours, refuses to stay within the boundaries the UN set when it over-generously gave away Arab land for the very establishment of Israel. This is the Israel that sends its secret service to assassinate its enemies abroad, the Israel that tried to sink a USA navy ship (see http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html ), the one that has frustrated US and UN attempts to bring peace to the middle east over at least 40 years.

Yet now the USA is considering giving $205million for more armaments to Israel, instead of to Israel's neighbours. The $205million is in addition to annual US assistance to Israel. According to the US state department, US military aid to Israel in 2009 totalled $2.55bn.

The USA either has no intention of bringing peace and justice to the middle east, or has no idea of how to go about it. I am sickened whenever I hear Australian politicians ally our country with them.
Posted by Forkes, Sunday, 16 May 2010 10:37:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy