xXShadowAssassinXx
<Member>
<Member>
^Now that's what I call a nuanced opinion.
Bioalchemist, I read there that the justices ruled that DNA sequences created in a laboratory are patentable. Does that include DNA sequences that exist in human DNA, as long as the sequence in question is created in a lab instead of extracted from existing DNA? Related to that, is it the DNA sequence itself that is patented, or the process by which it is extracted/created?
I'm kinda' of two minds on this, though. On the one hand, I don't generally trust large corporations to actually be out for my wellbeing, and not allowing these patents means that some tests and such could become much cheaper as generic versions become available. But on the other hand, this also means that researching such test and such are going to be less profitable, so companies aren't as likely to do the research in the first place, which could be bad in the long run. I don't know terribly much about the specifics involved, so I'm not too confident about making actual predictions, and I'd really love to hear some more specifics from Bioalchemist, if he knows anything.
Bioalchemist, I read there that the justices ruled that DNA sequences created in a laboratory are patentable. Does that include DNA sequences that exist in human DNA, as long as the sequence in question is created in a lab instead of extracted from existing DNA? Related to that, is it the DNA sequence itself that is patented, or the process by which it is extracted/created?
I'm kinda' of two minds on this, though. On the one hand, I don't generally trust large corporations to actually be out for my wellbeing, and not allowing these patents means that some tests and such could become much cheaper as generic versions become available. But on the other hand, this also means that researching such test and such are going to be less profitable, so companies aren't as likely to do the research in the first place, which could be bad in the long run. I don't know terribly much about the specifics involved, so I'm not too confident about making actual predictions, and I'd really love to hear some more specifics from Bioalchemist, if he knows anything.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
xXShadowAssassinXx
<Member>
<Member>
xXShadowAssassinXx wrote:
most researches dont do it for the money, thats why the article says that the researchers are happy.
People are generally good (in the moral sense). Researchers are generally people. This is clearly good (in the wellbeing sense) for people, so I can understand why researchers are generally happy, even if those researchers work for large corporations.
However, research can't happen without someone paying for it. Companies do most of that paying, which is why I worry that the loss of profitability could result in less research.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Ofc it's not about the money...
If you exclude the major definition of "company".
From a researcher's (everybodies) standpoint it's going to be boom and bane:
On one hand you can do research on stuff others have discovered, but on another this is also going vice-versa.
If you discover some import enzyme, gene, etc. and someone else with a bigger money pool can use this to develope a patentable product faster than you, a product you needed to earn money to continue your research...
Well, except for some entry in the history books, you're pretty much ****ed for doing mankind and that other company a favor.
There need to be a balance.
If you exclude the major definition of "company".
From a researcher's (everybodies) standpoint it's going to be boom and bane:
On one hand you can do research on stuff others have discovered, but on another this is also going vice-versa.
If you discover some import enzyme, gene, etc. and someone else with a bigger money pool can use this to develope a patentable product faster than you, a product you needed to earn money to continue your research...
Well, except for some entry in the history books, you're pretty much ****ed for doing mankind and that other company a favor.
There need to be a balance.
@ life. my understanding regarding the DNA sequence would be the process of which the sequence was produced itself or as you state the process by which that sequence can be extracted from the source would be the patent. also you can patent a specific gene sequence that you create (though this would be synthetic not natural) as this is similar to synthesizing a drug like aspirin.
The unaltered gene that has the blueprints for the natural sequence of a particular protein or you name it that is produced will now be safe from patent.
Good insight life. that is exactly the 2 sides of this particular decision. I myself have been trying to work it out. Research in certain areas will definitely become less profitable which in turn could lead to less research in particular areas such as breast cancer if intellectual property is freely exchanged because more groups will develop products creating more competition and driving down price. this price drive will make things more accessible to us which could save more lives especially for those of us that don't have millions like angelina. The point I have been thinking about is: would anyone really know about this gene that they tried to patent unless they had patented it? I may be wrong but I don't think they are required to provide the location of this gene and its function when selling their product.
This is the two sided sword of patents...yes you can protect your intellectual property IF you can prove that someone else stole it, but by doing so you have to release a certain amount of details regarding your gene/technique/machine that gets people thinking about it to make it themselves in some cases.
the thing i didn't get about this article is: "The government has already granted patents on 4,000 human genes, mostly to companies and universities."
What makes those genes different from BRCA1 and BRCA2?
I need to read up on this a little more...but from my point of view you this could slide down. for instance there are certain markers for diagnostics that we can't target because 'the use of a particular marker for a specific disease is under patent' in other words it would be like patenting the detection of PSA for use as a cancer marker...so no one else can develop a test that uses PSA for cancer as that is under patent. this is similar in that in this case a particular gene was used for diagnostics not a protein..but both are naturally produced..which i feel like was the argument for not allowing the patent on the gene no? so why is it ok to patent a naturally produced protein?
The unaltered gene that has the blueprints for the natural sequence of a particular protein or you name it that is produced will now be safe from patent.
Good insight life. that is exactly the 2 sides of this particular decision. I myself have been trying to work it out. Research in certain areas will definitely become less profitable which in turn could lead to less research in particular areas such as breast cancer if intellectual property is freely exchanged because more groups will develop products creating more competition and driving down price. this price drive will make things more accessible to us which could save more lives especially for those of us that don't have millions like angelina. The point I have been thinking about is: would anyone really know about this gene that they tried to patent unless they had patented it? I may be wrong but I don't think they are required to provide the location of this gene and its function when selling their product.
This is the two sided sword of patents...yes you can protect your intellectual property IF you can prove that someone else stole it, but by doing so you have to release a certain amount of details regarding your gene/technique/machine that gets people thinking about it to make it themselves in some cases.
the thing i didn't get about this article is: "The government has already granted patents on 4,000 human genes, mostly to companies and universities."
What makes those genes different from BRCA1 and BRCA2?
I need to read up on this a little more...but from my point of view you this could slide down. for instance there are certain markers for diagnostics that we can't target because 'the use of a particular marker for a specific disease is under patent' in other words it would be like patenting the detection of PSA for use as a cancer marker...so no one else can develop a test that uses PSA for cancer as that is under patent. this is similar in that in this case a particular gene was used for diagnostics not a protein..but both are naturally produced..which i feel like was the argument for not allowing the patent on the gene no? so why is it ok to patent a naturally produced protein?
Darcurse wrote:
If you discover some import enzyme, gene, etc. and someone else with a bigger money pool can use this to develope a patentable product faster than you, a product you needed to earn money to continue your research...
this is a good point darcurse.
lifebaka wrote:
However, research can't happen without someone paying for it. Companies do most of that paying, which is why I worry that the loss of profitability could result in less research.
indeed. shadow you really are showing your age in all your recent posts :)
this is unfortunately the truth regarding research that like other fields it is driven by money/funding and if you can't fund it...the research stops...and if you can't reimburse the money that goes into a project because someone can make it cheaper after you did all the work to make it initially you can go under.
Either I missed this with the first article or they left it out:
Washington Post
So they allowed the patent of the cDNA not the gene:
cDNA = complementary DNA, which is produced from the template strand of the DNA using reverse transcriptase (the key enzyme in PCR). I am guessing than that they use this as their detection system by attaching some sort of label/probe to the cDNA and insert it into the tissue sample.
that makes sense as a means of detection I suppose...still seems like it will put some hurdles on others making the test. not hard to make cDNA...right off the bat though I wonder if you couldn't make an immunoassay that is specific for the template strand.
Washington Post
So they allowed the patent of the cDNA not the gene:
cDNA = complementary DNA, which is produced from the template strand of the DNA using reverse transcriptase (the key enzyme in PCR). I am guessing than that they use this as their detection system by attaching some sort of label/probe to the cDNA and insert it into the tissue sample.
that makes sense as a means of detection I suppose...still seems like it will put some hurdles on others making the test. not hard to make cDNA...right off the bat though I wonder if you couldn't make an immunoassay that is specific for the template strand.
You need to log in before commenting.
Web Article
Not the best article, but gets you started. this decision has been working its' way through the justice system for quite awhile. curious to hear what you all think about it.