Comments on: Reform of gene patent law, or not http://technyou.edu.au/2009/08/reform-of-gene-patents-or-not/ TechNyou Sat, 05 May 2012 07:36:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: jasonmajorhttp://technyou.edu.au/2009/08/reform-of-gene-patents-or-not/#comment-56 jasonmajor Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:18:53 +0000 http://gntis.edu.au/?p=608#comment-56 Yes who knows with emerging technologies, but as with any emerging (or existing) technology, it is not so much the science, but how we as a society choose to use or apply it. And you are not the lone ranger with your concerns about giant corporations with large sums of money and their need to make ever increasing profits, but it can sometimes be a double-edged sword because these companies are often the only people with enough money to develop these new drugs or treatments for disease, and their argument is that the only way to protect the years of research and millions of dollars is through patents. In other words they need someway to hedge against the risk of investing in something that might ultimately fail – and many drugs being tested do fail or never make it to market. There are alternatives out there such as Open Source – see Cambia at www.cambia.orgAnd finally yes, who gets access to technologies such as a recently grown liver, an alcoholic with cirrhosis or a teenager with genetically-linked liver failure? Unless the technology has advanced that far that we can grow livers like carrots – but that is a long way off. It is an interesting debate to be had.Jason GNTIS Yes who knows with emerging technologies, but as with any emerging (or existing) technology, it is not so much the science, but how we as a society choose to use or apply it. And you are not the lone ranger with your concerns about giant corporations with large sums of money and their need to make ever increasing profits, but it can sometimes be a double-edged sword because these companies are often the only people with enough money to develop these new drugs or treatments for disease, and their argument is that the only way to protect the years of research and millions of dollars is through patents. In other words they need someway to hedge against the risk of investing in something that might ultimately fail – and many drugs being tested do fail or never make it to market. There are alternatives out there such as Open Source – see Cambia at http://www.cambia.org

And finally yes, who gets access to technologies such as a recently grown liver, an alcoholic with cirrhosis or a teenager with genetically-linked liver failure? Unless the technology has advanced that far that we can grow livers like carrots – but that is a long way off. It is an interesting debate to be had.

Jason
GNTIS

]]> By: Kieran Griffinhttp://technyou.edu.au/2009/08/reform-of-gene-patents-or-not/#comment-55 Kieran Griffin Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:24:07 +0000 http://gntis.edu.au/?p=608#comment-55 From what i could understand.. if we were to patent a gene, human or not, even if it is to be in it's natural state, i believe that a time would come when these patented genes will be used in order to manipulate genes to create 'Superior' organisms, much in the way they did in GATTACA generating a different social class away from racial discrimination. (Yes i am still a year 12 student and GATTACA is still fresh in my mind, sorry for the reference). But this probably won't be possible for a few years yet however, but with emerging technologies who knows? However i do believe that doing these test to create new vaccines as was done with cervical cancer, would be beneficial to society as it would contribute greatly, but if it were patented to some giant corporation which charged large sums of money to test, it would obviously greatly limit the extent at which this research could progress to and the parts of society which would benefit this research. It could be used for deadly diseases and viruses perhaps, but money is the obstacle which has to be overcome. As far as gene manipulation itself goes, I'm against cloning and the creation of a baby/person with altered genes which would make them superior, but to create organs for those with the need is also a thing which requires discussion.. so they deserve it? what have they done to require such a transplant? is it heridtary? disease? cancer? brought on by abusive drinking? smoking? all of those facters must be considered. From what i could understand.. if we were to patent a gene, human or not, even if it is to be in it’s natural state, i believe that a time would come when these patented genes will be used in order to manipulate genes to create ‘Superior’ organisms, much in the way they did in GATTACA generating a different social class away from racial discrimination. (Yes i am still a year 12 student and GATTACA is still fresh in my mind, sorry for the reference). But this probably won’t be possible for a few years yet however, but with emerging technologies who knows? However i do believe that doing these test to create new vaccines as was done with cervical cancer, would be beneficial to society as it would contribute greatly, but if it were patented to some giant corporation which charged large sums of money to test, it would obviously greatly limit the extent at which this research could progress to and the parts of society which would benefit this research. It could be used for deadly diseases and viruses perhaps, but money is the obstacle which has to be overcome. As far as gene manipulation itself goes, I’m against cloning and the creation of a baby/person with altered genes which would make them superior, but to create organs for those with the need is also a thing which requires discussion.. so they deserve it? what have they done to require such a transplant? is it heridtary? disease? cancer? brought on by abusive drinking? smoking? all of those facters must be considered.

]]>