My dad and I were listening to an NPR story about stem cell research. While talking about the subject, he enlightened me to the fact that the United States government allows geneticists to patent gene sequences. That's right, patent them. So someone literally owns the code for baldness or Downs Syndrome or something like that.
The question is: are genes really fair play for patents? Mind you, patents are for inventions, not discoveries, but researchers have found ways to redefine the rules for patents to have it their way. Why? Because if someone owns the genetic recipe for a trait, you have to pay them a royalty to conduct research on it. And then, technically, all of your findings belong to them. There's a lot of hoop-wah going on about how holding this "intellectual property" hinders scientific research. But then there are those who argue that if it weren't for the money, there would be no incentive for investments in R&D to begin with.
Speaking of intellectual property, here's another tidbit for you to chew on: the concept of Google Books. Google is undertaking a project to scan every volume out there into their database and make it available for users. Publishers and writers are getting their underwear in a wad because they say this violates copyright laws. But can't people just go to a library and check out the book for free anyway, even scan it themselves? Google is now starting to bargain with publishers, letting them allow only limited previews for some books. So who's committing the crime: those who horde information for themselves as a money-making asset or those who advocate the free and unlimited distribution of knowledge?
click on these:
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
(emily donahue)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Have you ever read Michael Crichton's book (begin underline)Next(end underline)? It's fiction, but it's still a pretty interesting commentary on the U.S's policy toward gene patents.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that institutions and corporations "owning" specific genetic sequences (and therefore owning the genetic traits that go along with those sequences) is a little scary. However, I suppose if geneticists weren't entitled to patents on their discoveries, there would be little incentive for them to try to cure Alzheimers or other diseases linked to genetics. In the end, the question is whether we will sacrifice a little bit (or alot) of our humanity in exchange for scientific advances.
As for the Google Books controversy, it reminds me alot about the problem with music pirating. In both cases, the issue of violating copyright laws is at the center of any debate.
-Bryce Cody