• Patenting a Gene
    29 replies, posted
In the United States, it is legal for a company to patent a human gene sequence once it has been isolated. The purpose of this is to be the [I]only [/I]company allowed to do testing on this sequence. The most well-known example is Myriad, which owns the patents on several gene sequences associated with a high-risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Because they own the patent on the gene, they can charge $3000 to check a blood sample for a mutation in one of these genes for people in families with a history of these cancers. Do you think this should be allowed? Personally, I don't understand it. How can they own a patent on something they didn't create? I am going through the process of having my blood tested at the moment. Besides the cost issue, it is also impossible to get a second opinion, and many people argue that it suppresses research. What are your opinions? If someone can patent a gene in your body, what else will they be able to patent in the future?
I feel the same way about software patents
That doesn't sound legal at all, and even if it somehow could be legal, it'd be really freakin' hard to enforce
I want gene therapy and designer babies so all the bad genes can go away and super humans with immortality can rule the world. Also let the world be run by companies and Free Markets and get rid of Governments.
No, what the hell? [editline]08:29PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hunterbrute;20711830]I want gene therapy and designer babies so all the bad genes can go away and super humans with immortality can rule the world. Also let the world be run by companies and Free Markets and get rid of Governments.[/QUOTE] Impossible unless you find a way to prevent gene degradation.
Patents don't last forever.
[QUOTE=Shock;20711826]That doesn't sound legal at all, and even if it somehow could be legal, it'd be really freakin' hard to enforce[/QUOTE] Well, I know it is legal for companies to patent genetically altered food such as monsanto soybeans that are resistant to pesticides.
When it comes down to it, nobody really "creates" anything. Think of any invention, and it's just an object that is possible because whatever phenomenon it exploits is what allows it to be possible in the first place. Inventions are more discoveries, if anything. It's a similar deal with this. They find [I]specific[/I] genetic structures and they want to be the ones to do research on them without another company competing with them.
[QUOTE=ZachPL;20711865]Well, I know it is legal for companies to patent genetically altered food such as monsanto soybeans that are resistant to pesticides.[/QUOTE] That seems more...ethical to me. The fact that they created something new that didn't previously exist seems different than patenting something that already exists in all of us.
Shouldn't be allowed. Having one company limits research for something that could potentially increase life span.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;20711855]Patents don't last forever.[/QUOTE] I think part of the problem here is that neither do Patients. :downsrim:
[QUOTE=cheesedelux;20711892]I think part of the problem here is that neither do Patients. :downsrim:[/QUOTE] :barf:
Seems like a terrible thing to me. We want a universally better understanding of how the human body works.
That sounds like a fucking retarded idea that will most likely hamper further medicinal research.
I came in this thread thinking, "But jeans are already patened..." then it was a genes.... Then i was dissapointed...
[quote]In the United States, it is legal for a company to patent a human gene sequence once it has been isolated. The purpose of this is to be the only company allowed to do testing on this sequence. The most well-known example is Myriad, which owns the patents on several gene sequences associated with a high-risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Because they own the patent on the gene, they can charge $3000 to check a blood sample for a mutation in one of these genes for people in families with a history of these cancers.[/quote] Wont this stump cancer research in America?
Shouldn't be legal at all. Shame on the company for prohibiting scientific advance by doing this. Their just being greedy. "Science is a collaborative enterprise." We're suppose to work together.
Science is funded by greed.
I think mathematics, medicine, and the strict sciences should be un-patentable. Only in a specific implementation should it be allowed.
Have you ever read "Next" by Michael Chricton? There's some stuff about that in there there's also a monkey boy
Some people even patented plant especies,but some of them just don't do it because they think about the common good An example would be [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferm%C3%ADn_Tang%C3%BCis]fermin tangüis[/url]. he developed a cotton seed that could resist the diseases but he didn't patented it
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20711867]When it comes down to it, nobody really "creates" anything. Think of any invention, and it's just an object that is possible because whatever phenomenon it exploits is what allows it to be possible in the first place. Inventions are more discoveries, if anything. It's a similar deal with this. They find [I]specific[/I] genetic structures and they want to be the ones to do research on them without another company competing with them.[/QUOTE] They create the combination of whatever is needed to make it happen.
I hereby patent sperm cells. No one can use them with out paying me 1000$ a cell. :smug:
Been reading books by Michael Chrichton again?
I feel someone can only "patent" a gene if the original person gave them consent to hold any sort of "rights" to it in the first place... If not, too bad, your out of luck jack. Patenting animals or plants though, thats fucking rediculous.
[QUOTE=bud389;20713916]I feel someone can only "patent" a gene if the original person gave them consent to hold any sort of "rights" to it in the first place... If not, too bad, your out of luck jack. Patenting animals or plants though, thats fucking rediculous.[/QUOTE] Even if one person did give them permission (I have no idea if this has ever happened), I don't feel it's right they own a patent on something in [I]my [/I]body (and well, everyone else's). I should say, however, that I am incredibly thankful to Myriad for finding and researching these gene mutations. It makes my life easier to know if I have the mutation or not and whether I should take preventative measures now to prevent cancer later. I just wish they would open up the research to everyone else too and not charge such ridiculous prices for the tests.
[QUOTE=tison345;20712717]Have you ever read "Next" by Michael Chricton? There's some stuff about that in there there's also a monkey boy[/QUOTE] high five bro
What the fuck? How can they possibly allow that to happen? That's just evil.
[QUOTE=Tarana;20714418]Even if one person did give them permission (I have no idea if this has ever happened), I don't feel it's right they own a patent on something in [I]my [/I]body (and well, everyone else's). I should say, however, that I am incredibly thankful to Myriad for finding and researching these gene mutations. It makes my life easier to know if I have the mutation or not and whether I should take preventative measures now to prevent cancer later. I just wish they would open up the research to everyone else too and not charge such ridiculous prices for the tests.[/QUOTE] I can understand why they have the patent, after all they are the ones who funded all the initial research into it. I do disagree with their exclusivity though. Maybe it would be best if they were forced to sell on rights to use their research (gene sequences) at a price controlled by a 3rd party regulatory body. That way they still get paid their dues and everyone gets a chance to work on it.
Example in OP is just wrong. Shit like that is just wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.