supreme court rules genes may not be patented

[Hasbinbad]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf

[Ahldagor]

this regarding human genes?

[Barkingturtle]

Yes. It's really too important to discuss here.

[Ahldagor]

Yes. It's really too important to discuss here.

that's true...would we own our organs grown from our stem cells???

[r00t]

govt cloned humans shortly after dolly if you dont understand that youre helpless

[Ahldagor]

govt cloned humans shortly after dolly if you dont understand that youre helpless

well, yeah, metal gear solid 2 proved that.

[Lyra]

I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Immortal-Life-Henrietta-Lacks/dp/1594134324

Her name was Henrietta Lacks, but scientists know her as HeLa. She was a poor Southern tobacco farmer whose cancer cells - taken without her knowledge - became one of the most important tools in medicine. The first 'immortal' human tissue grown in culture, HeLa cells were vital for developing the polio vaccine; uncovered secrets of cancer, viruses, and the effects of the atom bomb; helped lead to important advances like in vitro fertilization, cloning, and gene mapping; and, have been bought and sold by the billions. Yet Henrietta herself remains virtually unknown, buried in an unmarked grave. Now Rebecca Skloot takes us on an extraordinary journey in search of Henrietta's story, from the 'coloured' ward of Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1950s to East Baltimore today, where her children and grandchildren live, and struggle with the legacy of her cells. Full of warmth and questing intelligence, astonishing in scope and impossible to put down, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" captures the beauty and drama of scientific discovery, as well as its human consequences.

[Nikon]

'Natural' genes cannot be patented but synthetics can. That opens a door for industry to take a gene, duplicate it, modify it slightly, and patent it. I wonder, if you use a patented synthetic gene to make your kid taller, would you have to pay the patent owner when they decide to procreate and pass on that gene, or possibly tell you that you can't procreate because you haven't bought a license to 'distribute' the gene? Oh, the possibilities for making money...

[Hasbinbad]

Hopefully this will be used as precedent to stop patenting genetic information of any type. Shit is fucked up and bullshit.

[r00t]

I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways. -Mark Twain

[r00t]

mark twain, literally, patented himself, literally, thus literally making him the first to patent genes

[Nune]

Do you just read BBC News and post the thumbnails on the forums? lol

[Hasbinbad]

I digest a multitude of sources, and only bring to rnf the things I find most apt to piss the most people off and get them to post things that belie their true natures.

You can tell a lot about a person by what makes them mad.

[r00t]

young p99 redditor

[r00t]

follow me on twatter hbb

[r00t]

what im sayin is ur retwattable

https://twitter.com/noflyinghoot

[Hasbinbad]

I only started using twitter for specific reasons when I needed to be informed about specific things in a time sensitive nature. Batphones and ground tactics.

I still have twitter loaded up on all my devices should the need arise again, but I never use it.

Also I only follow people who I respect.

[r00t]

oh so u alrdy follow me then coo coo

[Stinkum]

I digest a multitude of Cheeto Puffs and Mountain Dew: Code Red and give a cursory glance to the Yahoo! homepage when I open a new Firefox tab. I only read the headlines and not the content of the actual articles, and then repost it here to try to convince others I pay attention to world affairs.

Fixed that for you.

[Hasbinbad]

oh hey a fat joke about a person who is fat

ur so smart and funny lol

[r00t]

thats 1 way to play it down i guess

[Hasbinbad]

B. Rabbit tactics dawg.

[Korisek]

Mountain Dew: Code Red is fucking delicious.

[Ahldagor]

'Natural' genes cannot be patented but synthetics can. That opens a door for industry to take a gene, duplicate it, modify it slightly, and patent it. I wonder, if you use a patented synthetic gene to make your kid taller, would you have to pay the patent owner when they decide to procreate and pass on that gene, or possibly tell you that you can't procreate because you haven't bought a license to 'distribute' the gene? Oh, the possibilities for making money...

don't think that would constitute as synthetic. they're going to have to develop in a lab the gene itself by forming it totally in a lab. if they're modifying someone's gene/s then they can't patent it because it was natural at the start and thus so from thenceforth.

the science is pretty cool, but it seems like it's motivated by that desire for the overman. why else would we isolate genes to "fix" certain things in people or enable them to modify their possible children with a set potentiality?

[Nikon]

don't think that would constitute as synthetic. they're going to have to develop in a lab the gene itself by forming it totally in a lab. if they're modifying someone's gene/s then they can't patent it because it was natural at the start and thus so from thenceforth.

This will be the next part of the debate for more specific guidelines. Taking a gene, splicing out components, and inserting new components that do not occur naturally will constitute a synthetic gene (a synthetic allele of the natural gene). I have a close colleague that works in the gene therapy research field here in Colorado and this was his explanation. Technically, even though it is naturally occurring to start, once modified, it is an entirely new product and not a naturally occurring gene or allele, which then is patentable. While the laws of nature dictate how the nucleotide sequence works and reacts just like other genes, the newly created gene is not naturally occurring. This ruling sets the precedent that the genes (sequences) humans are born with cannot be patented, but lab-modified (custom) versions of the nucleotide sequences can be. The idea of patents in the US is to be able to protect something you 'create'. A modified gene, while resembling a naturally occurring gene with even slight variations, is in essence a new gene if it is not found in the human body. This is where it will get tricky when lab genes are passed onto offspring and somebody else owns the rights to that gene.

My understanding is that Myriad filed a patent claim for isolating a specific gene and recreating it in the lab then claiming it as their own. It was in essence the isolated gene itself that they were patenting as the gene does not occur naturally by itself, but rather as part of a whole. I'm not a biology expert and lean more towards lab chemistry and physics, but what was explained to me falls into line with my knowledge of American patent history and my bio-chem education.

[Hasbinbad]

patent law is the root problem here.

[r00t]

whatsup?

[Nikon]

patent law is the root problem here.

I agree. While it motives corporate research and profits, it kills private research for fear of infringement and the costly process that follows.

[Nikon]

Motivates*

[Ahldagor]

This will be the next part of the debate for more specific guidelines. Taking a gene, splicing out components, and inserting new components that do not occur naturally will constitute a synthetic gene (a synthetic allele of the natural gene). I have a close colleague that works in the gene therapy research field here in Colorado and this was his explanation. Technically, even though it is naturally occurring to start, once modified, it is an entirely new product and not a naturally occurring gene or allele, which then is patentable. While the laws of nature dictate how the nucleotide sequence works and reacts just like other genes, the newly created gene is not naturally occurring. This ruling sets the precedent that the genes (sequences) humans are born with cannot be patented, but lab-modified (custom) versions of the nucleotide sequences can be. The idea of patents in the US is to be able to protect something you 'create'. A modified gene, while resembling a naturally occurring gene with even slight variations, is in essence a new gene if it is not found in the human body. This is where it will get tricky when lab genes are passed onto offspring and somebody else owns the rights to that gene.

My understanding is that Myriad filed a patent claim for isolating a specific gene and recreating it in the lab then claiming it as their own. It was in essence the isolated gene itself that they were patenting as the gene does not occur naturally by itself, but rather as part of a whole. I'm not a biology expert and lean more towards lab chemistry and physics, but what was explained to me falls into line with my knowledge of American patent history and my bio-chem education.

so the argument is: it's different because we've synthesized one allele that would occur naturally from human action it can be patented because it (the allele) was synthesized from human action.

my gist of it anyway, and i could be wrong. looking at the set up and not specific points, but on a brighter note i think we're a few years away from fully privatizing the powers of a creator god...go humans?!?!

[Ahldagor]

patent law is the root problem here.

aye. wonder when the last time they were revised was.

[Nikon]

on a brighter note i think we're a few years away from fully privatizing the powers of a creator god...go humans?!?!


The Court is establishing the foundation for the bureaucracy to manage it. With this and the brain mapping initiative we are possibly in for some interesting changes in our lifetimes.

[r00t]

evolution is fraud

[Hasbinbad]

I agree. While it motives corporate research and profits, it kills private research for fear of infringement and the costly process that follows.
I understand the ideas behind capitalist society. I understand how competition motivates progress. I understand how patents foster investment into advances to realize returns which nets progress for society.

I just think that the side effects are not worth the outcome.

I also think that those are not the only motivators of progress.
aye. wonder when the last time they were revised was.
Revision isn't going to help. We need to uproot the rotten tree and help a different tree grow.
evolution is fraud
this is 100% true