Greenpeace lawsuit could endanger stem cell research
123 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32851878]
Without them, Zeke, it's entirely likely that those life saving developments wouldn't be made in the first place. Not without changing society from the ground up. Call me a realist or a cynic, but I can believe in the term "necessary evil". This is shades of grey, not black and white like you make out.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like either way, the public loses and corporations win.
But in the mean time, let's not feed into their fearmongering and instead call them out on their bullshit. They're the ones at fault here, not Greenpeace.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32851994]Sounds like either way, the public loses and corporations win.
But in the mean time, let's not feed into their fearmongering and instead call them out on their bullshit. They're the ones at fault here, not Greenpeace.[/QUOTE]
It's degrees of loss though, and if this is upheld, the losses will be bigger. Economically and medically.
okay listen atlascore, I don't know if you have an answer or not for that question, but I think we got into a big misunderstanding
I'm gonna leave this alone now
[QUOTE=OvB;32849122]Not really. GOP don't give a fuck about the environment. If anything Greenpeace is liberal Luddite extremists[/QUOTE]
this isn't what "luddite" means
[QUOTE=Atlascore;32852036]you don't need an entire embryo's worth of stem cells to fix most problems stem cells could potentially fix.[/QUOTE]
here, this is it, you actually answered
look, the simple fact is, it's not the "entire embryo's worth" they need, embryonic stem cells are fundamentally different from other stem cells and are infinitely more useful
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell[/url]
[quote]In mammals, there are two broad types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, which are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts, and adult stem cells, which are found in various tissues. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing adult tissues. In a developing embryo, stem cells can differentiate into all the specialized cells (these are called pluripotent cells), but also maintain the normal turnover of regenerative organs, such as blood, skin, or intestinal tissues.[/quote]
basically embryonic stem cells are god and adult stem cells are superman
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32851601]Yay Ludditism![/QUOTE]
this isn't what luddite means
listen all I wanted to do was correct you on this one point but I got carried away
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32852102]this isn't what luddite means[/QUOTE]
Luddite (ˈlʌdaɪt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
1. any of the textile workers opposed to mechanization who rioted and organized machine-breaking between 1811 and 1816
[b]2. any opponent of industrial change or innovation[/b]
Best of intentions, but definitely matches that definition.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852016]It's degrees of loss though, and if this is upheld, the losses will be bigger. Economically and medically.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I doubt denying companies patents for this would be as bad as they claim.
It might actually force them to research and develop cures even quicker since they won't be able to stonewall other companies with patents and have to actively race against them to produce results.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852115]Luddite (ˈlʌdaɪt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
1. any of the textile workers opposed to mechanization who rioted and organized machine-breaking between 1811 and 1816
[b]2. any opponent of industrial change or innovation[/b]
Best of intentions, but definitely matches that definition.[/QUOTE]
that's a dictionary defining the common usage of the word "luddite", a common usage which is inaccurate
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852115]Luddite (ˈlʌdaɪt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
1. any of the textile workers opposed to mechanization who rioted and organized machine-breaking between 1811 and 1816
[b]2. any opponent of industrial change or innovation[/b]
Best of intentions, but definitely matches that definition.[/QUOTE]
A patent is, by definition, an opposition to industrial change and innovation.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32852127]I don't know, I doubt denying companies patents for this would be as bad as they claim.
It might actually force them to research and develop cures even quicker since they won't be able to stonewall other companies with patents and have to actively race against them to produce results.[/QUOTE]
or they'll just give up on them completely
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
I dunno, this is all wild speculation
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32852133]A patent is, by definition, an opposition to industrial change and innovation.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the issue is not as clear cut as that.
Because the people who fund research are the corporations, nowadays. Without research, no innovation or change. And so on.
So a patent, the end goal that they pursue, is a bit of a two-edged sword, but it does fuel innovation, probably more than it does stifle it (And stifle it, it assuredly does)
if you're using the term literally then you're incorrect
if you're just using it as a vague pejorative then you're not really being productive in the argument
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32852172]if you're using the term literally then you're incorrect
if you're just using it as a vague pejorative then you're not really being productive in the argument[/QUOTE]
Used perjoratively for the most part, but actually, as it fits the dictionary definition it does work. Covert ludditism.
Besides the point, I've contributed pretty adequately and productively to this debate. More than you have by nitpicking over terms and describing the dictionary as "wrong."
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32852140]or they'll just give up on them completely
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
I dunno, this is all wild speculation[/QUOTE]
I can't see a company giving up on a potential profit goldmine.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;32852193]Companies don't give up on profits, do you know how much money could be made from curing blindness? Or fixing any of the other million problems stem cells can fix?
The first company to get a fully functioning cure using stem cells for any of them out the door would get a lot of money.[/QUOTE]
Except without patents to defend that profit, they're not going to be as sanguine about funding such research. Greed > Altruism.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852196]Used perjoratively for the most part, but actually, as it fits the dictionary definition it does work. Covert ludditism.
Besides the point, I've contributed pretty adequately and productively to this debate. More than you have by nitpicking over terms and describing the dictionary as "wrong."[/QUOTE]
the dictionary is a total jerk, i hate that guy
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852205]Except without patents to defend that profit, they're not going to be as sanguine about funding such research. Greed > Altruism.[/QUOTE]
They can make money without a patent
All a patent would allow them to do is deny other companies the right to research the same thing without paying up
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32852219]They can make money without a patent
All a patent would allow them to do is deny other companies the right to research the same thing without paying up[/QUOTE]
And that is a lot more important to corporations than just the immediate profit, the ability to maintain a monopoly until the patent expires. It's been the same with pharmaceuticals for god knows how long now. If everyone can do it, it's not worth doing.
It's not right, but you won't change it now. It's far too engrained.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852205]Greed > Altruism.[/QUOTE]
Well... not in a general sense, greed is kind of shit
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;32852193]Companies don't give up on profits, do you know how much money could be made from curing blindness? Or fixing any of the other million problems stem cells can fix?
The first company to get a fully functioning cure using stem cells for any of them out the door would get a lot of money.[/QUOTE]
The problem with that is then you'll need proprietary "company secrets" to get anywhere as a corporation which I think is far more sinister than any patent
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32852258]Well... not in a general sense, greed is kind of shit[/QUOTE]
I was meaning as a force to motivate people, especially large bodies of people.
Not in terms of being "better."
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852292]I was meaning as a force to motivate people, especially large bodies of people.
Not in terms of being "better."[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know, it's just kind of shit that we just take it for granted
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32852305]Yeah, I know, it's just kind of shit that we just take it for granted[/QUOTE]
They're a business, maximising profit is the reason they exist.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;32852336]They're a business, maximising profit is the reason they exist.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but they can't do it if they don't give a fuck about the consequences of their actions
Corporations should be ethical about their moneymaking
[QUOTE=Atlascore;32852382]And the first business to get fully functioning stem cells out on the market would make billions regardless of whether or not they had a patent.[/QUOTE]
But that would not be the trillions they could stand to make with a patent. Which is where the problems come in. Without a patent, they have no protection or future proofing on their concept.
When it comes to it, microbial life is just molecular machinery ready to be modified in unique and useful ways
If someone can logically explain how this is any different from patenting any other machine, please do
Keep in mind that microbes are physically incapable of any thought whatsoever and we're just talking microbes here, not patenting human genes which is something completely different
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
Obviously patenting sentient life is a big fucking no no
Sounds like something from the last level of SWAT 4.
This is why i hate EU and whole western Europe. Them stupid dickheads think they are still in middle ages! Let's bomb them to oblivion!
What the fuck
They absolutely shouldn't be able to patent genes
Research should be a state-funded endeavor, otherwise you end up with things like Vioxx
[B]These patents will ultimately reduce the amount of research conducted guys[/B]
[editline]19th October 2011[/editline]
At the moment, at least in Australia, this isn't the case because all researchers just pay the royalties to use the genes. But that significant risk is still there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.