| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.
The code in the gene is nature, blongs to all of us, and cannot be patented. Rather, the company should pay persons with the gene a fee.
people cannot patent people,or parts of people, no one owns us but ourselves!!!
NO. Monopolies are only concerned about money, not humanity. DNA related R&D should be policed but not squashed by corporate greed.
Here's where we need the "invisible hand of the free market" to rear its head.
This is a fundamental issue of the protection of innovation. Without it US leadership in technology development will be eliminated
Nobody should get a patent until they have a worthwhile product. Using a patent just to squat on a medical claim is sickening.
Are you kidding me! All they did was purify it, not build a whole new gene sequence from scratch! No way they should be allowed to do that.
Could people in possession of a rare gene be forced to submit tissue samples if a company owns a patent to it? Scary.
Why do these places feel the need for greed ? Number one problem with the world is greed.
Monopolies suppress innovation and reinforce the lawsuit based system which is ruining our society. all patents should be banned.
If they patent genes, I'm submitting my patent request for water and air, I'll be rich in a week!
It sickens me to hear that they're putting a "patent" on genes. I'm actually opposed to the concept of genetic manipulation as a whole.
The constitution outright says we do not have the right to patent something in nature. Companies have no right to patent these things.
Places such as the EU have struck down gene pattens esp when companies such as Myriad did not even put the work into finding the gene in the first place!
#2 - Wed May 13, 2009 1:22 PM EDTI disagree with the majority's opinion that genes should not be patented. If you can't patent a gene, private companies will simply not commit the resources to find them. Nuff said.
#3 - Wed May 13, 2009 1:28 PM EDTI disagree, you should be able to patent a process or testing method but not the Genes themselves.
So be it if private companies don't want to look. It's obvious that there are ways to have private companies do the work and then license it. If we can't work that out reasonably, let's go ahead with better funding of the National Sciences and let big pharma go on with looking for drugs which actually take effort to create and test. I'm not a fan of government but they can easily handle finding stuff that's already there.
Myriad has not done any research - they took info that was out there done by others and with US tax money and put a patent on that info along with all future related genes - they are sitting back making money waiting for others to make discoveries and then are swooping in and making money.
That would be just right. Profit has no place in health care, as we can see from what it's done to our healtcare system in this country. The work can be done by the government and universities, and the discoveries could then be part of the commons - public property, where they belong.
@KR-265231 - How can you say that private companies wouldn't commit resources to finding genes? Look at the money that gets poured into medical research. Billions of dollars are spent every year finding cures for cancer and other diseases. If you can find the gene, you can find the cure. Nuff said.
What should be patentable is the test method or the treatment. This leaves the door open for others to find competing methods and to patent improvement. To grant ownership of one's genetic code to anybody other than the person is ludicrous. Genetic information is knowledge, just like knowledge of the heart, lungs, brain, etc. You can't patent those things.
#4 - Wed May 13, 2009 1:59 PM EDTThe Company did not develop the gene and, therefore, has no right to patent it.
The Company should be allowed to patent the test that they developed, but they should also be required to license it out. Charging an outlandish amount of money to do a test on which women depend to guide their cancer treatment should be outlawed.
#5 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:28 PM EDTFrom the modern Hippocratic Oath:
"I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow."
Patenting a gene is directly against a doctor's Hippocratic Oath. The progress of medicine was not prompted by keeping secrets so patients have no option other than to come a specific medical doctor. That is the method of contolling people that witch doctors have used since the benning of time.
Credit is certainly due to the people who locate these genes, and such it the way things have always been in medicine; the discoveries of one are shared by all for the betterment of humanity. There is no other reason to patent vital information like this, other than to create a permanent monopoly on treatments. Pharmaceutical companies already have a 5 or so year monopoly granted to them to recoup their investment on a new medicine. Anyone ever go to the local Walgreen's and be told "there's no generic available" because the drug is still fairly new? Now you know why.
Patents are granted on products that people CREATE, not what they find. I can't patent a fungus that stuck to the bottom of my shoe, but if I develop a pharmaceutical that refines that fungus into a medicine, I can only patent the drug itself and the method of its creation.
If we are going to patent genes, then I'm announcing that I claim the first patent on the entire gene sequence of e-coli bacteria, and all researchers have to pay me a royalty per bacterium when they use e-coli in testing.
#6 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:36 PM EDTAnd I will claim a patent on all my genes, just because I have them... they are mine. Then, the rest of humans who have genes similar to mine will have to pay me royalties or die because they cannot "use" my genes...
Can this get any more ridiculous? I sincerely hope the courts get it and outlaw such patents!
hey ross, how did the mormons rip you off? you should shut your trap about peoples religion... it doesn't do a bit of good, and makes people correctly assume you're small minded. if it had been a company based in san fransisco, would you be spouting off about " Ahhh, the homosexuals"? you complain about the right wing religous, but the left is just as bad. again, keep your trap shut, or someone, preferably myself, will shut it for you...
#7 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:36 PM EDTHow can one company patent something that occurs naturally in every body? A patent should be applicable to something that is invented or created, not something that already exists.
Next the money hungry morons will want to patent trees, dirt and water.
And try to get rid of the politics, out here on the left coast most of the money folks are dems....(Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi).
We need to be a bit more concened with quality of life, screw the politics.
#8 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:39 PM EDTThey already are patenting plants. Monsanto is one of the greatest evils that exist in the world today, but they fly pretty low and a lot of people aren't aware. They're trying to monopolize the food supply.
Monsanto has patented corn among other crops.
Go to Hulu.com and watch "The future of food" to see how Monsato's patents are forcing farmers to destroy 100 year old custom seed stocks (blends) because they (Monsanto) now owns genetic patents on the seeds the farmer use (and have used for decades) to grow the food we eat. They are helping wipe the worlds food supply out.
Potato faming anyone, history repeats itself. We need diversity and putting patent on genes is preventing this.
This is good info that can be directly applied to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents.
These patants not only effect you current health but also the food that is now available to consumers.
Putting patents on nature is stupid and apperantly can only happen here in America. Hopefully the courts will see this and correct the situation.
Great, can I patent the human heart and collect royalities from the whole human race?
#9 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:43 PM EDTAnother example of the government promoting corporate greed and ignoring its citizens' best interests.
#10 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:49 PM EDTIf the company owns the patent on a particular gene, and if a person gets sick because of that particular gene, i.e.cancer, can that same sick person sue the patent holder of that gene because of the negative ramifications inherent in that gene??
#11 - Wed May 13, 2009 2:53 PM EDTBexter,
Your question proves the old adage ..."It's never too late to go to law school!"
Bexter ;
An excellent observation , but unfortunately there's the rub .
There were federal laws passed years ago that greatly limited
the liability of companies doing genetic research .
They did not limit potential profits , just liabilities .
This could be the most extreme example of
"the public be damned " legislation in history (and not
just the US public) .
OK , so a gene splicing company has found out that
you have a gene in your body that they have patented .
Is there anything to stop them from suing you for
patent infringement ?! Apparently not .
The legal basis for patent law requires that the patent
is not already in use for the year preceding the patent .
But you were using this gene when you were born &
your parents before you , etc.
Simple application of law would exclude such obvious
violations but the large sums of money involved make it
impractical to counter sue .
I propose a (government ?) fund be created to launch
such countersuits .
That being said , the companies should be permitted
to get patents for gene testing of their discovered genes .
The legal community is lagging far behind the technology .
Is it possible that they know which side of their bread is
buttered ?
The only way to clean up our mess in this country is to start killing the greedy bastards and lawyers
#12 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:15 PM EDTDon't you believe it, KR-265231. For now, patenting the genes themselves is just the easiest path to take. If that option disappears, companies will find other ways to turn profits on their research and development - you can bank on it.
#13 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:22 PM EDTeugenics anyone?
#14 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:35 PM EDTOnce again greed has taken precedence over health and life in this country.
#15 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:38 PM EDTall good and valid comments. go Team Free DNA!
#16 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:40 PM EDTCan I patent the 20 dollar bill? I discovered one in my pants pocket. I have even discovered a test for locating them. Put hand in pocket, wiggle fingers.
#17 - Wed May 13, 2009 3:59 PM EDTLOL - good one!
This is absolutely ludicrious that anyone can patent any gene. This creates monopolies on life itself and hinders cures that would be otherwise discovered by many as opposed to one. Any law that allows this should be abolished forever. Next you won't be able to have children because they will patent sperm and ovum. How ridiculous................hope they ACLU and plaintiffs win this one.
#18 - Wed May 13, 2009 4:05 PM EDTHaving read this article, I couldn't avoid thinking about Michael Crichton's novel "Next" written about corporate greed and gene patents. Could all this be true one day??? Perhaps we are not that far away...
#19 - Wed May 13, 2009 4:11 PM EDTYou know...I'm a very pro-business sort of guy, but this goes beyond the pale of unconscionable. Our patent laws are broken. They actually probably do more to stifle creativity than to foster it. Honestly, if you can't physically produce the item you're hoping to patent and can't do so in a reasonable timeframe or if you didn't actually invent the item or process, then you shouldn't be able to patent it. Period.
#20 - Wed May 13, 2009 4:19 PM EDTI'm gonna file a patent on the human brain and charge everyone in the world for using the brain that god gave them and I now own. Obviously the patent office will be exempt from charges since they don't seem to have recieved any brains.
You can't patent a gene. The gene belong to the person it's found in. You may be able to patent a test that finds the gene but you can't patent the gene itself.
Brain dead bureaucrats.
#21 - Wed May 13, 2009 5:38 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
They've gone too far. Time to CHANGE this!