First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Should Human Genes Be Patentable?!? Nature vs. Human Creation!!?!?!What about Religion!!?!??
mipegg 
19396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
Religon has zero place in making societal laws and precedents. The only thing that should matter is science and public opinion, unfortunately a large portion of society still clings to religion to guide them, so we're not going to get away from that nonsense for a while
28332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
I'm going to agree with the Judge. These companies already make more than enough money to research stuff. We already have enough greedy fools. Imo, wouldn't patenting human genes be like owning slaves all over again? Probably not the best thing to compare too, but I'm sure you guys and gals get my drift.

Nuff said.
7729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
Only if your ugly because Your children with be born with your facial "problem" and reproduce it onto there offspring which will become a never ending cycle.
970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Samsara
Offline
Posted 8/14/13 , edited 8/14/13


no.... this is the pharmaceutical industry where it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug approved by the FDA and then you have marketing expenses... you have to discover some blockbuster drug or some drug to recover all your research expenses and debt every few years and almost 10% of all drug's discovered each year are approved so sometimes all that money you put into research is wasted!! this is one of the hardest industries to go into and these people aren't greedy because they are helping the promise of personalized medicine come true!!! they probably set the prices of drug's based off of research cost's and supply and demand with enough money to pay for their debt's and pay for some more research to release their next drug how is that greedy?? it's just business... This is not like owning slave's this is healthcare it's like healing people with personalized medicine (but hopefully some stupid people might not come in a discriminate you because of your genes) we can't make a human clone and have it as a slave yet too.... i just don't get if you understand the pharmaceutical industry or not.. /: how do you think they get the money to research stuff?? besides through investors (and if it's a start up that is solely funded through investors and the first drug trials fail the company fails) it is mainly funded by it's drugs on the market that ensures the investor's the company is making money... i do agree with the judge to some extent but not sure if i should because im not sure if this will slow the personalized medicine revolution or make it progress gradually...


no... the accumulated poor have wayyyyyyyy more money than the rich ever hear the quote "it doesn't matter if your rich or poor, as long as you've got money?" They set the prices based on supply and demand and research cost's and sometimes if the poor can't pay for it the government does /: if they set the price so high that only the rich can afford it where they could've set it to a lower price they may be losing potential revenue where it could've been higher because less rich have the disease and are willing to pay for the medicine then the middle class or low class.. pricing a product is a very important step in a companies success and it could decide if a company is going to bust or grow/: only case i heard where companies price thing's really high for stpid reason's is fashion industry but idk much about that /: but call the fashion industry greedy not the pharmaceutical industry though some big pharma have bad practice's ... im not sure if this will lag the promise of personalized medicine or not (only the rich can afford it right now and not because of greed because of supply and demand) some scientific progress will be made definetly because the company would be motivated to research new molecular medicine's for disease that correlate around the genes they have patent's for to make money .-. but that may be a small amount of research compared to when it is not a patent and everyone can legally research medicines with that gene (molecular medicine is a very tough multidisciplinary field to learn and research. very risky for companies to go into the field but can be very promising too like a almost 95% chance of the drug working compared to normal medicine)

Combined your posts together. Double posting is not allowed. Please see #9 under Site Rules for further explanations. ~mocha ^^!~
8641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Ohio
Offline
Posted 8/14/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

I support the patent of genes.

It's a business. It's not about whether it's the "product of nature" or not. If your company is the one who discovers which gene is responsible for cancer, why would you let others use YOUR findings to make money for themselves? It's illogical.

It is the nature of business to patent discoveries you funded your research on.


But I doubt the Supreme judge is any knowledgeable in business or science; simply saying "it's the product of the nature" doesn't really support the decision.


i agree with this however morally i guess it is wrong since obviously if more people could use them we would have a much better chance at curing things and helping out countless people


also religion shouldnt play any part in this unless someone of a certain religion thinks its not right then them thereself should not partake in it
13274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
I think this thread might be bait.
21596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / SoCal, HB
Offline
Posted 8/14/13 , edited 8/14/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUpgfARGmXs

^^^more info on it ^^^

===========
the problem is that if you have the mutation, you're f-kd, Myriad owns it...

basically, I think there should be a special short-term patent for genetic discovery, then let more scientist get a hold of the thing.

Patents tie their hands, ties everyone's hands really, but the monetary incentive is good.

We gotta make it so it's profitable without making it inaccessible to patients, doctors, and scientist. Find a good balance.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5bOJT_HtUI

Combined your posts together. Double posting is not allowed. Please see #9 under Site Rules for further explanations. ~mocha ^^!~
11053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114 / M
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
Patents have their value, but I think the court was right to rule against gene patents.

Patenting a particular process to produce a gene might be fair game, but the gene sequence itself should not be patentable. As others have posted, if someone carries a genetic sequence they should not be subject to patent claims. Even though human genes may be synthesized artificially it does not trump the fact that they are still products of nature and can still be produced naturally.

Also, I think the liabilities of patenting genes far outweigh the benefits. Giving an exclusive claim to a particular gene or variation thereof sets up a situation where one could extort whole classes of people on account of their genetic code, by asserting patent claims over whole ranges of research and therapy involving a particular gene. A patent holder with a bad therapy could shut down competitors with superior alternatives.
5143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Covina, California
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
In a certain scientific railgun C2, Misaki is cloned over many times by some scientist that got her genes, when she offered them up to save a life, however, someone else uses her genes for another experiment, would you not say that is illegal, Because the genes that were given was for a particular use?

And then someone uses here genes to make " knock offs " of her to get some guy to kill them off to reach level 6 in esper power, I see it as a flagrant misuse of someone's genes.
40728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M / Reno, NV, USA
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
Speaking broadly, religion has a lot to say and do with regard to laws and precedents and such. The supposed dichotomy between "religion" and "science" is a false one. Indeed both deal with the fundamental questions of what is and why and how. While atheists typically reject the term for themselves (more a rhetorical device than a statement of fact, in my opinion), one's religion is one's worldview, and thus one's religion can be atheistic, materialistic, theistic, mystical and anything or everything else in between. One's religion can have a great influence on one's sense of morality. The laws are a reflection of a society's prevailing morality (or at least that of the lawmakers), and so in fact yes, we "legislate morality" all the time.

Anyway, I'll just point out that people have been cloning and sequencing genes now for decades, and mostly without any regard for patents or profits down the road. I did my own share during my graduate school years, as have hundreds if not thousands of others around the world either in graduate school or as faculty/professors and such, and as far as I know, people continue to do it. If anything, it's a lot easier, quicker, and cheaper now than when I did it. Here in the U.S., it's probably still mostly government funded (or was in my day) through NIH grants and such (I hear biotech/pharma funds more university research nowadays than in the past). While I don't think gene sequences are inherently unpatentable, I'm against the idea of patenting them, so I'm generally pleased with the SCOTUS decision. A testing methodology (e.g. to detect BRCA mutations) can be patented, though. Other companies can still get in the game by devising alternate methodologies, and this happens in the clinical laboratory field. Companies compete all the time trying to say their test is better, faster, cheaper, and whatever.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.