[Ravenholme]

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.

That'd be reassuring, if it wasn't for the fact that there is a rather strong corporate movement for more rigorous copyright and patenting laws that enhance the rewards of such actions to the patenter, and screw over the end user, and as mentioned, I have a moral issue with it which might be to do with me being a biologist, and find it very hard to conscience patenting an assortment of Guanine, Adenine, Cytosine and Thymine base pairs when everything living on this planet has some combination of these. It's one step from patenting the assortment, to patenting the molecules. After all, look at all the bat **** crazy cases where people have patented words and got away with it.

[Luis Dias]

The problem is that gene sequences that are copyrighted aren't from "full strains of DNA". Such a thing couldn't even be the case, since mutations are inevitable in such scales. Gene sequences tend to be very specific and small. Sufficiently small for "coincidences" to occur very naturally.

[Ravenholme]

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.

My issue with it is that they're patenting variations in something that is absolutely fundamental to the functioning and life of organisms, which is where the whole slippery slope comes in.

And of course, it's much harder to prove that it's anything but a parallel development, and furthermore, if two teams with a decent knowledge of the literature and work done in genomics set out to accomplish the same thing, it is fairly likely that they'd modify the same genes in the same way, as they're trying to arrive at the same effect. It's not like writing software where you can use 8 different langauges, 40 different compilers and work in a different encryption key.

[Luis Dias]

When someone patents strings, we are all ****ed up.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

You're talking to a guy whose [first]  university degree reads with the words "Molecular Genetics" featured prominently in the title.  Saying I'm naive on this subject would be exceedingly foolish on your part.

Synthetic genes and non-synthetic genes look completely different in codon structure.  At the present time, it would be near-impossible for someone to create a gene that coincidentally matched with a naturally-occurring gene; any such match would not be a coicidence, but intentional patterning after nature, and thus (I believe) should not be patentable.

At present, the knowledge to effectively "design" a gene doesn't exist for practical application; any synthetic genes are based off naturally-occurring ones.  This is not to say that we are unlikely to be able to create designer genes in the future; hence, those who make the investment to do so should receive the rewards for doing so - a patent.

For now, existing patents on DNA sequences lean to discovery (and application of said discovery), which I tend to think is wrong.  As an example, BRCA1 is/was under patent, making any test (not just the one sold by the patent holder) for that gene illegal without royalty payment.  In Canada, that [American] patent has not been recognized and tests are routinely done for it without royalty payment.

---

To address the more recent posts, any chemical is made up of elements - chemical formulations are subject to patent (and the same argument about natural-occurrence would apply).  There is nothing fundamentally different about nucleic acids that should make patent law apply any differently - come up with something novel, patent should apply.  Use/discover what already exists, absolutely not.  And I'm also looking at this from a serious [molecular] biologists standpoint.

[MP-Ryan]

The problem is that gene sequences that are copyrighted aren't from "full strains of DNA". Such a thing couldn't even be the case, since mutations are inevitable in such scales. Gene sequences tend to be very specific and small. Sufficiently small for "coincidences" to occur very naturally.

Incorrect.  Base pair (codon) sequences are subject to copyright, not gene sequences, not DNA strands, not chromosomes.  Said sequences are specific, but rarely small, and the chances of a coincidence with a natural gene are so remote as to be irrelevant.  And if a natural gene were to be discovered that mimics the structure/function of a synthetic gene subject to patent, there's a simple fix - void the patent.

[General Battuta]

The problem is that gene sequences that are copyrighted aren't from "full strains of DNA". Such a thing couldn't even be the case, since mutations are inevitable in such scales. Gene sequences tend to be very specific and small. Sufficiently small for "coincidences" to occur very naturally.

Uh this is biologically very very wrong.

[Ghostavo]

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.

I'm not sure you are agreeing with me or not, but anyway, just because it resists being sprayed with Roundup, doesn't mean it has the Monsanto gene, unless you want to argue that Monsanto also engineers weeds to have that gene.

Using your example, surviving drowning may indicate that the person is not a witch, but Aquaman.


To put it more simply, it sounds like they've copyrighted not the gene itself, but the concept of resistance to Roundup.

[MP-Ryan]

To put it more simply, it sounds like they've copyrighted not the gene itself, but the concept of resistance to Roundup.

Nah; the lower court judge made an error of fact which was never appealed; and as higher courts don't look at factual errors unless they're a subject of appeal (which this wasn't identified as, reading the SCC decision), it didn't get corrected in the higher courts, which are limited in scope.  Any expert worth their pay would have debunked that on appeal if the issue had been raised; apparently it wasn't (too bad, but the court system isn't infallible.)

[Luis Dias]

The problem is that gene sequences that are copyrighted aren't from "full strains of DNA". Such a thing couldn't even be the case, since mutations are inevitable in such scales. Gene sequences tend to be very specific and small. Sufficiently small for "coincidences" to occur very naturally.

Incorrect.  Base pair (codon) sequences are subject to copyright, not gene sequences, not DNA strands, not chromosomes.  Said sequences are specific, but rarely small, and the chances of a coincidence with a natural gene are so remote as to be irrelevant.  And if a natural gene were to be discovered that mimics the structure/function of a synthetic gene subject to patent, there's a simple fix - void the patent.

Ok, I'll have to read more about the subject. Thanks for the heads up.