[Scotty]

Genetically manipulated potatoes are ethically less problematic countermeasures against the Blight than Grey Wardens.

I think I'm going to have to sig this.

[Mongoose]

I can't wait to hear this lunacy.  Why, precisely, do you object to genetically-modified crops or other foodstuffs?

(Devil's advocate) economical reasons, the company is trying to monopolize the food industry. They most be stopped.

To be fair, when you read about a few of the companies that are pushing GM crops, it's clear that they engage in some really scummy behaviors.  I just recently read a story (which I could have sworn was linked somewhere in here, but maybe not) about one of these companies attempting to sue a farmer for "DNA theft" because of some cross-pollination of their GM crop with his own.  Apparently, when they set up a deal with a farmer, they basically forbid that farmer from saving any seed from the harvest to plant next year's crop, instead forcing them to buy all-new seed from the company each year.  Doesn't exactly sound like a benevolent business model.

[Snail]

Not really surprised. There's a flipside to everything. Always good to be weary of big companies.

**** THE ESTABLISHMENT

[MP-Ryan]

To be fair, when you read about a few of the companies that are pushing GM crops, it's clear that they engage in some really scummy behaviors.  I just recently read a story (which I could have sworn was linked somewhere in here, but maybe not) about one of these companies attempting to sue a farmer for "DNA theft" because of some cross-pollination of their GM crop with his own.  Apparently, when they set up a deal with a farmer, they basically forbid that farmer from saving any seed from the harvest to plant next year's crop, instead forcing them to buy all-new seed from the company each year.  Doesn't exactly sound like a benevolent business model.

That's not a problem with GMOs, that's a problem with ****ty business ethics and poor industry regulation.  That's not really a legitimate objection to technology; it's a criticism of our economic/regulatory systems.

As it happens, the Canadian Supreme Court compromised on the Monsanto case - patents are valid, but without intent to profit, the farmer was legally absolved of financial damages.  Not necessarily the ideal outcome, but that was also 10 years ago and was a matter brought under patent law (which has its own nuances), rather than regulatory.  The full text of the SCC decision is here:  http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html  As an incidental matter, higher organisms (whole plants) are not patentable in Canada either; only some specific genes.  Thus why there was some dissenting opinion on the Court.

Also, the farmer presents a great sob story but the facts do not exactly bear out his version of events entirely.  What follows is a matter of fact established by the Courts:

Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it.  Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants.  The origin of the plants is unclear.  They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser’s land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).

[Luis Dias]

The problem there is copyright being possible with DNA, which is just ****ing ludicrous and abhorrent. Yet, it is being used to hijack profits to big corporations.

[Ghostavo]

Reading the SCC decision MP-Ryan posted brought horror with the following passage:

13 A Roundup Ready Canola plant cannot be distinguished from other canola plants except by a chemical test that detects the presence of the Monsanto gene, or by spraying the plant with Roundup.  A canola plant that survives being sprayed with Roundup is Roundup Ready Canola.

[Droid803]

13 A Roundup Ready Canola plant cannot be distinguished from other canola plants except by a chemical test that detects the presence of the Monsanto gene, or by spraying the plant with Roundup.  A canola plant that survives being sprayed with Roundup is Roundup Ready Canola.

A Witch cannot be distinguished from other humans except by a chemical test that detects the presence of unholy influence (burning), or by drowning the person. A person that survives drowning is a Witch.

[Flipside]

Not really surprised. There's a flipside to everything

Wasn't me....

[qazwsx]

I wonder how many of the protesters were diabetic.

[MP-Ryan]

The problem there is copyright being possible with DNA, which is just ****ing ludicrous and abhorrent. Yet, it is being used to hijack profits to big corporations.

That's simplistic.  There's nothing wrong with copyright on a coding sequence that is entirely synthesized by the intellectual property holder (e.g. someone who creates a gene).  Where the problem lies in copyrights on discoveries, which the US has been permitting.  Copyright on an end product you develop is fine and well established in principle; copyright on discovery of things existing in nature is crap.

[Mustang19]

What you can do though is get a use/utility patent for specific uses of those "things". The problem is that this class of patents is especially hard to protect and even though you might be covered in theory in practice it's hard to prevent someone from stealing your idea.

[Ravenholme]

The problem there is copyright being possible with DNA, which is just ****ing ludicrous and abhorrent. Yet, it is being used to hijack profits to big corporations.

That's simplistic.  There's nothing wrong with copyright on a coding sequence that is entirely synthesized by the intellectual property holder (e.g. someone who creates a gene).  Where the problem lies in copyrights on discoveries, which the US has been permitting.  Copyright on an end product you develop is fine and well established in principle; copyright on discovery of things existing in nature is crap.

Well, I actually am somewhat with Luis Dias on this actually - being able to patent parts of a genome is a VERY slippery slope.

[Droid803]

I hereby patent the human X Chromosome.
Everyone now must pay me money for existing. Girls pay double for having two copies.

[MP-Ryan]

I hereby patent the human X Chromosome.
Everyone now must pay me money for existing. Girls pay double for having two copies.

You're being facetious, but the near-equivalent of that very sort of shenanigans is happening, particularly in the United States.

[Mustang19]

Well, I actually am somewhat with Luis Dias on this actually - being able to patent parts of a genome is a VERY slippery slope.

DESIGNER BABIES!!!! JURASSIC PARK!!!!

I think we already talked about eugenics and after a distinctly unscientific debate between nonbiologists we deemed it to be impractical.

Then again this board is full of liberals and non-Americans.

You're being facetious, but the near-equivalent of that very sort of shenanigans is happening, particularly in the United States.

There's a difference between patenting something that already exists (which doesn't work) like a human gene and inventing something.

[Flipside]

Damn those liberals and non-Americans...

Seriously though, as I understand it, the main concern regarding GM crops is the kind of 'arms race' that has begun in the Medicinal sector because of a vast over-use of antibiotics to treat infections, not it's direct impact on a human. The more we modify crops to deal with strains of disease, the more resistant those strains of disease become. As has been mentioned before, we've been doing this for centuries, anyone who has eaten a Banana has experienced genetically modified food, only the modifications took place over several generations.

As far as copyrighting genetics is concerned, we've also been doing that for a very long time, particular strains of cattle, particular fruits etc, Apples, in particular, is an industry that relies extremely heavily on 'un-natural' methods to produce its stock in the specific varieties we know.

[Luis Dias]

The problem there is copyright being possible with DNA, which is just ****ing ludicrous and abhorrent. Yet, it is being used to hijack profits to big corporations.

That's simplistic.  There's nothing wrong with copyright on a coding sequence that is entirely synthesized by the intellectual property holder (e.g. someone who creates a gene).  Where the problem lies in copyrights on discoveries, which the US has been permitting.  Copyright on an end product you develop is fine and well established in principle; copyright on discovery of things existing in nature is crap.

That's not simplistic at all, and you are being completely naive. So what happens when you go to the trouble at "inventing" a new synthetized DNA, only to some years later find out another living being with the same genetic code? Because you invented this code by yourself, are you still allowed to state that you "own" it? This is patently ridiculous, since you run towards the exact same problem as if you only "discovered" it. Notice the brackets I place in those two words, there's a reason for it. Who gets to know whether if a company really synthetized a genetic code or just "found it"? And what is research and development, if not "finding out" what is possible in the gene landscape?

So you see, you are trying to make a distinction where none is possible. DNA copyright is something that is completely abhorrent, and the more people realise this sooner the better. Because companies are already copyrighting DNA sequences that are human. Imagine the consequences. Dystopia is just a corner away.

[Ravenholme]

Well, I actually am somewhat with Luis Dias on this actually - being able to patent parts of a genome is a VERY slippery slope.

DESIGNER BABIES!!!! JURASSIC PARK!!!!

I think we already talked about eugenics and after a distinctly unscientific debate between nonbiologists we deemed it to be impractical.

Then again this board is full of liberals and non-Americans.

You're being facetious, but the near-equivalent of that very sort of shenanigans is happening, particularly in the United States.

There's a difference between patenting something that already exists (which doesn't work) like a human gene and inventing something.

The problem I see with it is that every 'designed' gene could *potentially* arise naturally. There is no way for humans to create a gene that could not arise from a natural mutation at some point, as we're still using the same base pairs and combinations thereof. Speaking as a biologist, I find the idea of patenting a combination of base pairs that could have arisen naturally, but was simply engendered in this case, a very slippery slope and somewhat abhorrent.

I mean, to use an analogy, it's like me patenting a lego house I made with the same blocks that a friend used to make a car - to use a VERY simple analogy.

Edit:

Huh - Snap, Luis Dias.

[Mustang19]

Damn those liberals and non-Americans...

Whenever I say something like that, I am being half-serious you know.

Antibiotics are an entirely separate issue from GM, although what you said is true I think. The second statement you make about the disease resistance arms race might be entirely true as well. However, these newly evolved resistant strains aren't going to be as effective against the original crop either as the original strain was... so they really aren't anything new or threatening.

The related problem we were talking about in the eugenics stupidity thread was that GM tends to create monocultures, or less diverse plant populations, and this reduces disease resistance.

I mean, to use an analogy, it's like me patenting a lego house I made with the same blocks that a friend used to make a car - to use a VERY simple analogy.

An identical DNA strand just popping out of nowhere is absurdly unlikely. As for something being considered novel which turns out to be already-existing and therefore unpatentable, well, this is true for anything- not just DNA patents- and I'm sure its a common issue in patent law. Regardless the patent is going to expire after a few years, just long enough to reward the inventor for coming up with the idea.

[General Battuta]

An identical DNA strand just popping out of nowhere is absurdly unlikely.

Agreed that this is really unlikely - but what if a competitor copies your strand, alters a few irrelevant bases and claims it's a parallel development?

I guess this is a problem existing patents covering software and the like already face, though.