Old news is old

Silly boy. Job creators own your DNA, just as they own everything else.

So does this mean that when we perfect cloning I wont have to pay massive royalties to Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johansson and various other female's I have cloned? Cause that would be kinda helpful in keeping the costs down.

If you freely gave a sample and signed an agreement that allows for study and utilization of the DNA you are SOL. If you left dander hither a tither... you are SOL. The one case given though where doctors removed samples without approval should be criminal.

Lucky LaRue: Without patent protection on DNA, then bio-genetic companies would not spend $10s (100s?) of millions to make medical discoveries that will ultimately improve our health, extend our lives, and improve our standard of living.

Would I rather the government spend the money funding research and keep DNA in the public domain? I dunno.. maybe. I think the overall cost would be a lot higher, and I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

bu bu but.. fledgling industry! There's no need for genetic patenting.. if you can't patent the whole, you can't patent the part.

You can't patent a fish, so no patenting a naturally occurring set of fish DNA. Invent a wholly new set of fish DNA not found in nature.. well OK you can patent the sequence. This is how it should be.

Don't get me started on being able to sue farmers who have been polluted by some jerkoff company's patented spermatozoa.

It's the first thing you learn when you have a Chronic illness..The reason new drugs are held back.. PATENTS. Patents for cells ect.. it's a twisty twisty world where people want to recoup some of their investments.

Weaver95: look, it's really very simple: if a corporation can make astronomical amounts of money off your DNA, then you don't own it...they'll stick a patent on your ass and take what they need when they need it. you do not get to object, nor do you get a share of the profits. If, on the other hand, your DNA is worthless...then you own it free and clear.

Because that's how we roll.

Thats not quite what the article says... or the current state of patent-law as it relates to DNA sequences. But this is a huge issue. One huge court case (Mayo Clinic vs Prometheus) just went through SCOTUS and there is at least one other big and relevant one working it's way up through the lower courts. No one would argue that an individual doesn't own their DNA but the question is what rights others may have to its use when you submit it for some sort of analysis to a company like 23andMe. I fundamentally disagree with patenting genetic sequences unless it is something you designed from scratch to create something novel since otherwise it is just patenting a natural product. I know here in Canada they ignored the patent on a BRCA variant that determined breast cancer risk and decided they would just use the sequence as a diagnostic anyway. But as it stands US patent law is basically the de facto patent law for the rest of the world.

lewismarktwo: Lucky LaRue: Without patent protection on DNA, then bio-genetic companies would not spend $10s (100s?) of millions to make medical discoveries that will ultimately improve our health, extend our lives, and improve our standard of living.

Would I rather the government spend the money funding research and keep DNA in the public domain? I dunno.. maybe. I think the overall cost would be a lot higher, and I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

bu bu but.. fledgling industry! There's no need for genetic patenting.. if you can't patent the whole, you can't patent the part.

You can't patent a fish, so no patenting a naturally occurring set of fish DNA. Invent a wholly new set of fish DNA not found in nature.. well OK you can patent the sequence. This is how it should be.

Don't get me started on being able to sue farmers who have been polluted by some jerkoff company's patented spermatozoa.

GloFish beg to differ...

Lucky LaRue: Without patent protection on DNA, then bio-genetic companies would not spend $10s (100s?) of millions to make medical discoveries that will ultimately improve our health, extend our lives, and improve our standard of living.

Would I rather the government spend the money funding research and keep DNA in the public domain? I dunno.. maybe. I think the overall cost would be a lot higher, and I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

This logical fallacy pisses me off. I hear this argument all the time and people eat it up. But it's all outright B.S.

Patents were not always awarded for genetic information. There was a time when it was not believed this was possible. And the dug companies still dropped tons of money on cures of any-sort because they can make money off of it. In much the same way as the fact you don't need a patent on a hamburger to sell a lot of hamburger.

What you are allowing with the patent process is EXCLUSIVITY, meaning a government supported monopoly. I am of the strong opinion that monopolies are never good. Even temporary ones (which is what patents and copyright were SUPPOSED to be) are now abused by offering seemingly never ending extensions on time-outs until the patent is worthless by the nature of all the real competitors not limited by the laws (as in other countries) coming up with their own.

Its the public swallowing crap like "If these companies can't ensure ROI, they wont invest" that really Grinds My Gears. Because all you really get when you buy in is the same fark'n service as AT&T was in the early '80s.

Diogenes: Old story. Next?

/satisfied
//now, off to RTA

At the moment, I can't find a relevant link. However, I believe there were quite a few articles a few years back about Ashkenazi women who were or who felt they were betrayed by genomics and breat cancer researchers?

Lucky LaRue: Without patent protection on DNA, then bio-genetic companies would not spend $10s (100s?) of millions to make medical discoveries that will ultimately improve our health, extend our lives, and improve our standard of living.

Would I rather the government spend the money funding research and keep DNA in the public domain? I dunno.. maybe. I think the overall cost would be a lot higher, and I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

If the government did it, the money they'd spend is money which would have been spent regardless. So why not use that money for the benefit of society as a whole rather than a multibillion-dollar fighter jet that the military neither needs nor wants?

On the other hand, if it was funded and released by a private company, any beneficial medicine would be either so ridiculously expensive that most of the people who would benefit are instead forced to suffer whatever ailments they may have, or so watered-down that it's basically a placebo.

In centuries past it was serious superstition that people would destroy their hair and nail clippings lest some "evil spirit" takes over your "spirit" and possesses you. There is some sense to be made that human genetics has been abused in the past.

I'm not saying it was aliens..but..

Just a thought.

Lucky LaRue: I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Going into science 'to make money' is like a straight girl going to a gay bar to try to find a date.

If they'd like my DNA I'll be happy to give them a mouthful.

Is there anyway for a person to patent their own genome? I mean, it seems like it would be a good thing to invest in, just in case.

Lucky LaRue: ....I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

Why would the scientists working for the pharmas make a mint off their discoveries? In fact, in what fields do the professional workers actually reap the huge benefits of their discoveries? If you're an engineer with a billion dollar idea at IBM, you're not going to make a billion, IBM is, why would it be any different at a drug company?

Your reasoning. It is severely flawed.

Felgraf: Lucky LaRue: I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Going into science 'to make money' is like a straight girl going to a gay bar to try to find a date.

This. You don't do a decade of grad school and postdocs and fight for grants with sub-10% paylines to make it rain...In academic research, seeking high levels of personal compensation is frankly an anathema.

TabASlotB: Felgraf: Lucky LaRue: I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Going into science 'to make money' is like a straight girl going to a gay bar to try to find a date.

This. You don't do a decade of grad school and postdocs and fight for grants with sub-10% paylines to make it rain...In academic research, seeking high levels of personal compensation is frankly an anathema.

Oh, well you wouldn't want to pollute the field with people who were in it just for the money. We need the true believers doin' the sciencing. ;)

amoses7178: What you are allowing with the patent process is EXCLUSIVITY, meaning a government supported monopoly. I am of the strong opinion that monopolies are never good. Even temporary ones (which is what patents and copyright were SUPPOSED to be) are now abused by offering seemingly never ending extensions on time-outs until the patent is worthless by the nature of all the real competitors not limited by the laws (as in other countries) coming up with their own.

Well - as a question - how else would you suggest the conversion of a public good into a monetizable one (i.e. a private or club good)?

If a company has a patent on a particular piece of DNA, why are they not then liable for genetic abnormalities resulting from that piece of DNA?

FTA: "What about DNA? Suppose we assumed that Wood's genetic makeup included cells that were resistant to AIDS. Do Wood or Whisnant have any proprietary claim to profits to be derived from the extraction, culture and sale of those cells?"

If my DNA were resistant to AIDS or any damn disease and people could benefit from that I'd gladly put it out there for free, with the proviso it and every cure or treatment made from it be distributed FREE to anyone who wants it. Kinda like GNU, y'know. And I'd do my damnedest to make sure this got publicized world-wide via the Internet, maybe through the UN.

It could be a public relations coup for whichever firm wants to do it: they can say something like "You can trust our antidepressant. We wiped out AIDS, didn't we?"

Otherwise, I'm agin it. If they want my DNA let 'em get on their knees.

Felgraf:

Lucky LaRue: I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Going into science 'to make money' is like a straight girl going to a gay bar to try to find a date.

In my long career I meat several really hot chicks in gay bars. Dyke bars too. There was this one who...

Lucky LaRue:

The engineer with the billion dollar idea at IBM wouldn't make the mint. However, that engineer is good enough to be working at IBM for $60/hour. Are suggesting that most engineers like him would be willing to work for public gratitude and a government salary of $25/hour?

One word: SOCIALISM.

/beaten to it, but now w/ image goodness

amoses7178:
This logical fallacy pisses me off. I hear this argument all the time and people eat it up. But it's all outright B.S.

Patents were not always awarded for genetic information. There was a time when it was not believed this was possible. And the dug companies still dropped tons of money on cures of any-sort because they can make money off of it. In much the same way as the fact you don't need a patent on a hamburger to sell a lot of hamburger.

What you are allowing with the patent process is EXCLUSIVITY, meaning a government supported monopoly. I am of the strong opinion that monopolies are never good. Even temporary ones (which is what patents and copyright were SUPPOSED to be) are now abused by offering seemingly never ending extensions on time-outs until the patent is worthless by the nature of all the real competitors not limited by the laws (as in other countries) coming up with their own.

Its the public swallowing crap like "If these companies can't ensure ROI, they wont invest" that really Grinds My Gears. Because all you really get when you buy in is the same fark'n service as AT&T was in the early '80s.

Dont forget with meds you have to go through FDA approval process. That approval process alone is 800 million dollars. No one would spend that kind of money if they dont own the product at the end. Find a way around that and you have a game changer.

Raw_fishFood: Is there anyway for a person to patent their own genome? I mean, it seems like it would be a good thing to invest in, just in case.

That would not be much of an investment, one individual's genome is not worth much. In fact, let's say you have a very unique disease. So unique you are the only one in the world that has it. Not only is no one going to pay you for the pleasure of sequencing your genome but even if you somehow got it done for free no one is going to bother to do any research on it because there only one person in the world, you, that is going to benefit from that research. Unless you pay for the R&D yourself you are SOL. On the other hand if you had a disease that was common then there is no doubt that lots of people are going to be willing to give away their genetic information for free in the hope that the research will benefit them or their offspring. Furthermore the key sequence or sequences that are being discover through data mining are not coming from any one individual. The data could be from thousands of individuals so any "payout" should be should be shared equally among them. And shared not just among the individuals with the disease but those with out the disease as well because you need their samples in order to identify which sequences are unique to the disease.

This whole "I've got to get paid" attitude makes me wonder why anyone donates blood. A life is pretty valuable right? The hospital makes money. The doctor makes money. Why shouldn't the guy who donates the blood? I have to confess I donate a few times a year. I guess I should stop being such a chump.

There are surely issues with big pharma but patents are still an important way for the little guy to get into the market. If ever there was an industry that is *NOT* a sure thing it's the drug industry. I worked for a spinoff company that developed tools for data mining genetic information for the drug industry. We thought we had some pretty valuable software but we ran out of money before we could develop a market and we went out of business. If I wanted a sure thing I could have stuck with the parent company doing military funded work. The sweet, sweet flow of cash from the DoD is about as sure a thing as you can get and nobody worries about the patents in that industry.

While I am not arguing that the current patent system is fair or perfect this article is just a silly little glimpse at a complicated problem.

Huh. I spat in a tube for 23andme; they were doing a $99 "special offer." That's how I found out I'm unlikely to be anything but "pure" Caucasian (dammit) and that I have a decreased risk of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. (That I don't flush from booze and find it easy to overeat I've known for decades.) Some news is good news.

But it would piss me off to know that my DNA had helped produce a cure, treatment or vaccine that somebody who really needed it couldn't afford. There's probably much I could do about it though, not in my lifetime anyway...

Awwww skeet skeet skeet

Lucky LaRue: alphalemming: If a company has a patent on a particular piece of DNA, why are they not then liable for genetic abnormalities resulting from that piece of DNA?

Wouldn't a genetic abnormality mean that it is no longer the patented segment of DNA in question?

Step 1) sell warranty on patented gene
Step 2) product self-voids warranty
Step 3) profit

/rushes off to patent self-voiding warranties on genes

rwfan: Raw_fishFood: Is there anyway for a person to patent their own genome? I mean, it seems like it would be a good thing to invest in, just in case.

That would not be much of an investment, one individual's genome is not worth much. In fact, let's say you have a very unique disease. So unique you are the only one in the world that has it. Not only is no one going to pay you for the pleasure of sequencing your genome but even if you somehow got it done for free no one is going to bother to do any research on it because there only one person in the world, you, that is going to benefit from that research.

Already mentioned but here's the wiki link anyway.

Henrietta Lacks was one individual, with a unique mutation of cancer. Two samples (one cancerous, one not) were taken from her in 1951, and subsequently used to generate the HeLa line of cells. The doctors did this for free - hell they didn't even inform her that they had taken the samples. Since these cells could indefinitely reproduce and were effectively immortal, they became quite valuable. They've been used to research everything from the polio vaccine to the effects of fullerines on human tissue. Meanwhile, her family was so poor that neither her or her daughter was able to afford headstones on their graves, and they never found out about the cell line until medical companies started calling and asking for blood samples in the 70's. Hell, they even made a ripped from the headlines epidose of Law and Order out of the story.

So yeah, her heirs could have benefited from having a patent on ma's cervix.

Lucky LaRue: Felgraf: Lucky LaRue: I am not all that certain scientist would spend their time working on discoveries if they didn't stand a chance to make a mint when they made the next big breakthrough.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Going into science 'to make money' is like a straight girl going to a gay bar to try to find a date.

I don't think it has anything to do with being a scientist and everything to do with being human: As altruistic as you'd want to make them, I don't think many geneticist would choose to do something for public gratitude and government pay when s/he could do the same thing and make millions.

But there's more motivation than just the money, is what I'm saying.

If people with science degrees really, truly, ultimately just wanted money, they'd spend 3 more years, get a law degree, and then become a patent lawyer with a bachelor's/Masters in some hard science field, and then they would almost quite literally have a license to print money. Seriously. Just with a masters in a hard science, you tend to get a 6 figure income as a patent lawyer. If you have a *Ph.D.*? You basically get to make your own rules.

Almost any scientist worth their salt would be thrilled to make the next big discovery, even if it didn't mean they became a millionaire forever... if not just for the love of discovery/research (which is big and addictive), than for the fact that their name would be synonymous with the person that discovered that cure. They'd be one of the greats. Hell, in some ways, government-run research makes a hell of a lot more sense: There's never a guarantee on return when you do research. You don't know the outcome in advance.That's why its called research, and not engineering.

/No offense to the engineers out there, you do incredibly important work.
//Like figuring out how to make all the crap we find *useful*.

Basically if you want to download a Nickelback song the RIAA can sue you into the stone age.
If Donald Trump thinks your kidney might be a better match than his original parts, you cant do jack about it.
See how that works?