elegy on a toy piano

he's amazing.
 

I don't like this idea very much at all, either, and I've heard a great deal about it. Patenting what makes up our body is really dumb, but I suppose many resort to measures like this because the government is too closed minded to fund a lot of research.

The only thing this will do is strengthen pharmaceutical interests (particularly when 'genetic medicine' comes to prominence in the near future), and as you said it, make real progress very difficult. There needs to be action taken against this; it almost seems as if it is some strange concept pulled right out of a science fiction book.
 

I never really understood who let this get by. I mean, if you synthesize a new material in the lab good for making pencils out of, thats one thing, but just discovering a chemical compound I don't think should mean you have the rights to it.
 

This was a cool post. Very interesting.
 

The patent doesn’t give full control and use of a sequence to one person/company, but rather the commercial rights to it. This could be seen as the same as film production companies "owning" film stars.

In the EU, at least, there are safeguards which say that if a gene(s) is discovered to code for a protein that could have an amazingly positive effect on mankind then the EU can cancel the patent early and take any necessary action. Furthermore, patents only exist for 20 years anyway.

If you think of a world without gene patents, there might not be any companies willing to do research on new sequences because there wouldn't be any profit in it. At least this way we're promoting scientific research.
 

NEXT was a great book, but it's FICTION (abeit science fiction) but still FAKE!
 

Samsonite, the difference is that those film stars personally signed away their associated commercial rights, whereas these patents grant their holders the commercial rights to parts of individuals who had no say in the matter. To use an example from the article: "...you can't even donate your own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it's now private property." What's next, patenting regions of the brain for use in psychological studies? This is obviously a stretch, but the principle is disturbingly similar.

Additionally, it is entirely possible for companies to still profit amid competition in the market. To use an obvious example, Pepsi and Coke may be selling similar products, but both remain in business. If anything, the absence of a monopoly keeps the companies on their toes.

A patent that frequently makes research unfeasible for everyone except the patent holders is not conducive to scientific research. Yes, it may benefit the lucky few who hold patents, but this is offset by the degree to which it hampers everyone else.