Poll

should we be allowed to patent genes?

yes
4 (28.6%)
no
10 (71.4%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Genes

  • 27 Replies
  • 2647 Views
Genes
« on: September 27, 2009, 08:23:41 PM »
I read an article that says that in some country's it is legal to patent genes. should this be allowed to continue?
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Genes
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2009, 08:24:35 PM »
What the hell? This is stupid.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Genes
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2009, 08:32:00 PM »
What the hell? This is stupid.
Hey your from the country where someone patented the wheel
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
anyway so I take it you do not agree with it being allowed?
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Genes
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2009, 08:34:57 PM »
anyway so I take it you do not agree with it being allowed?

Correct. That's what I meant by "this is stupid."
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Genes
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2009, 08:38:20 PM »
It is being challenged by a women who's mother had a gene that increases her odds for having breast cancer. she wanted to test for the gene to see if she should get her tubes tied so she won't pass it on. the company that has the patent on it wont take her insurance and no other company can test for it because of the patent.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Genes
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2009, 08:39:40 PM »
It is being challenged by a women who's mother had a gene that increases her odds for having breast cancer. she wanted to test for the gene to see if she should get her tubes tied so she won't pass it on. the company that has the patent on it wont take her insurance and no other company can test for it because of the patent.

...

You know patent law has gone too far when it starts working against people rather than for them.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Genes
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2009, 08:43:21 PM »
Anyway I was wondering if there is anyone here who actually approves of patenting genes. haven't found anyone yet.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2009, 11:39:51 PM »
It is being challenged by a women who's mother had a gene that increases her odds for having breast cancer. she wanted to test for the gene to see if she should get her tubes tied so she won't pass it on. the company that has the patent on it wont take her insurance and no other company can test for it because of the patent.

...

You know patent law has gone too far when it starts working against people rather than for them.

They all work against people dumbass.


Also, this is retarded, it is a product contained in every person, it's like patenting lungs. The methods for testing for the gene are not property of the company, next will they ban surgeons from looking for patented items swallowed by patients?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Genes
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2009, 01:37:06 AM »
If we allow medicines to be patented I don't see why we shouldn't allow artificially engineered genes to be patented or better still, since it's basically information the standard 50 year copyright.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Genes
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2009, 06:45:06 AM »
This is an interesting question.  There is no doubt that random mutations have resulted in several beneficial genes.  In many cases these mutations are studied in order to come up with a new treatment for some disorder.  Should the corporation or university that uses the gene to develop new treatments have sole monetary benefit for the treatment, or is it the owner(s) of the gene that have the right to patent it to ensure that they benefit from it's medical use?

Here's an example of a beneficial mutation:

http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/ym_au02/findings.html

Re: Genes
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2009, 07:01:40 AM »
If we allow medicines to be patented I don't see why we shouldn't allow artificially engineered genes to be patented or better still, since it's basically information the standard 50 year copyright.
Um they aren't just patenting the engineered ones, which I don't have much of a problem with. they are patenting genes that have been in humans for who knows how long.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Genes
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2009, 07:42:32 AM »
You know, it's pretty horrible to patent engineered crops as well. Farmers who can't afford engineered crops will be ruined if some of it gets into their crops by accident and the patent holder finds out.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Genes
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2009, 07:44:24 AM »
If we allow medicines to be patented I don't see why we shouldn't allow artificially engineered genes to be patented or better still, since it's basically information the standard 50 year copyright.
Um they aren't just patenting the engineered ones, which I don't have much of a problem with. they are patenting genes that have been in humans for who knows how long.

I thought the very nature of a patent meant you can only patent what you have invented? If not then I officially patent moon craters, yellow flowers and squirrels.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2009, 07:47:18 AM »
If we allow medicines to be patented I don't see why we shouldn't allow artificially engineered genes to be patented or better still, since it's basically information the standard 50 year copyright.
Um they aren't just patenting the engineered ones, which I don't have much of a problem with. they are patenting genes that have been in humans for who knows how long.

I thought the very nature of a patent meant you can only patent what you have invented? If not then I officially patent moon craters, yellow flowers and squirrels.

Dumb huh? I want to patent part of my neighbor's property, they can still own it but they can't look at it or alter it.

Re: Genes
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2009, 07:48:12 AM »
If we allow medicines to be patented I don't see why we shouldn't allow artificially engineered genes to be patented or better still, since it's basically information the standard 50 year copyright.
Um they aren't just patenting the engineered ones, which I don't have much of a problem with. they are patenting genes that have been in humans for who knows how long.

I thought the very nature of a patent meant you can only patent what you have invented? If not then I officially patent moon craters, yellow flowers and squirrels.
I believe the argument went something like by reading the genes you change it enough so that it can be considered an invention. Sort of like if you translate a book then patent the information you learn from it. granted I don't agree with it but that is what the argument is
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Genes
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2009, 07:51:09 AM »
That's absurd, by that logic I should be allowed to re-write Harry Potter as Harold Potter, change the sentence structure in a few places and sell it as my own.

Lawers are bloody scumbags.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2009, 07:53:30 AM »
If we allow medicines to be patented I don't see why we shouldn't allow artificially engineered genes to be patented or better still, since it's basically information the standard 50 year copyright.
Um they aren't just patenting the engineered ones, which I don't have much of a problem with. they are patenting genes that have been in humans for who knows how long.

I thought the very nature of a patent meant you can only patent what you have invented? If not then I officially patent moon craters, yellow flowers and squirrels.
I believe the argument went something like by reading the genes you change it enough so that it can be considered an invention. Sort of like if you translate a book then patent the information you learn from it. granted I don't agree with it but that is what the argument is

So reading it is changing it? Could I then read the genes they've written down out loud, changing it to speech and patent their research as my own? Also, that should only patent THEIR research, not the ability to test for said gene.

?

Crudblud

  • 2427
  • Scone Advocate
Re: Genes
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2009, 12:55:43 PM »
The human race once again manages to somehow sink lower than it already was.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2009, 07:42:30 PM »
Lower? We're top of the food chain.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Genes
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2009, 10:12:29 PM »
Lower? We're top of the food chain.
Somehow, I didn't get the impression he was talking about the food chain...
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2009, 02:21:26 PM »
Lower? We're top of the food chain.
Somehow, I didn't get the impression he was talking about the food chain...

How else would you rank a species? By their willingness to help others with no personal gain? That sounds like a species that will not do well.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Genes
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2009, 05:53:22 PM »
Lower? We're top of the food chain.
Somehow, I didn't get the impression he was talking about the food chain...

How else would you rank a species?
By moral excellence or decay.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2009, 08:09:42 PM »
Lower? We're top of the food chain.
Somehow, I didn't get the impression he was talking about the food chain...

How else would you rank a species?
By moral excellence or decay.

Morality is a subjective idea, and in no way makes someone better or worse.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Genes
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2009, 08:19:14 AM »
Morality is a subjective idea, and in no way makes someone better or worse.
Yes it is. I rank and judge people subjectively all the time.
Also, ranking systems don't have to physically influence anyone.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Genes
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2009, 11:07:04 AM »
How else would you rank a species? By their willingness to help others with no personal gain? That sounds like a species that will not do well.

There is an entire branch of biology that contradicts your statement.

Also, I voted yes, but only if you create the gene sequence.

Re: Genes
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2009, 12:09:44 PM »
How else would you rank a species? By their willingness to help others with no personal gain? That sounds like a species that will not do well.

There is an entire branch of biology that contradicts your statement.

Also, I voted yes, but only if you create the gene sequence.
Ya... I should have made the question clearer. at the time I had just read an article on someone patenting human genes and did not even consider genetic engineering when I made the topic.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Genes
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2009, 10:54:25 PM »
Morality is a subjective idea, and in no way makes someone better or worse.
Yes it is. I rank and judge people subjectively all the time.
That just makes you a jerk, something that i guess morally makes you lower.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Genes
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2009, 09:20:14 PM »
Yes it is. I rank and judge people subjectively all the time.
That just makes you a jerk, something that i guess morally makes you lower.
Thanks for the subjective review judge Raist.  :)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.