Total Members Voted: 14
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
What the hell? This is stupid.
anyway so I take it you do not agree with it being allowed?
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.
Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 27, 2009, 08:38:20 PMIt 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.
We're all jealous of Raist.
Also, Chris is hot.
Penis tastes like skin.
Especially Marcus. He has a smart brain.
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.
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.
Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 28, 2009, 01:37:06 AMIf 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.
Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 28, 2009, 07:01:40 AMQuote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 28, 2009, 01:37:06 AMIf 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.
Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 28, 2009, 07:44:24 AMQuote from: optimisticcynic on September 28, 2009, 07:01:40 AMQuote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 28, 2009, 01:37:06 AMIf 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
Lower? We're top of the food chain.
Quote from: Raist on September 28, 2009, 07:42:30 PMLower? We're top of the food chain.Somehow, I didn't get the impression he was talking about the food chain...
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 28, 2009, 10:12:29 PMQuote from: Raist on September 28, 2009, 07:42:30 PMLower? 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?
Quote from: Raist on September 29, 2009, 02:21:26 PMQuote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 28, 2009, 10:12:29 PMQuote from: Raist on September 28, 2009, 07:42:30 PMLower? 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.
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.
Quote from: Raist on September 29, 2009, 02:21:26 PMHow 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.
Quote from: Raist on September 29, 2009, 08:09:42 PMMorality 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.
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 30, 2009, 08:19:14 AMYes 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.
Yes it is. I rank and judge people subjectively all the time.
Poll