We all know that probably half of the food on our table has been genetically modified in one way or another, and things are gonna stay that way. But how do you guys feel about patenting GMOs (Genetically modified organisms)? Recently, there was a lawsuit in Canada where a farmer was sued by a GMO company for having traces of GMO wheat on his farm, which was carried over by the wind etc from a neighbouring field - not what he actually grew. Ridiculous? Well the Supreme Court certainly didn't think so. The farmer lost the lawsuit.

As more and more things are genetically modified, more and more everyday items will be patented. Now it's plants. But what about when genetic research develops into the medical field? Will organs be patented? Will the correction of certain disease genes be patented? What about when we have to power to genetically change our hair colour, or eye colour, etc. Is someone going to patent blue eyes, and collect money from everyone born with blue eyes? Many parts of the human genes have already been patented during the Human Genome Project. And if GMOs are continued to be allowed to be patented, people are going to be paying to have the things they are naturally born with! How do you think you'll feel if a certain body part is suddenly patented by a huge bio-chem company? "Oh, born with blue eyes, you say? Too freaking bad, that huge company over there holds the patent for the genes! Pay up!"

Right now patents are limited to only non-living things, and things that do not occur naturally. But in reality, that all goes right out the window! Are GMOs not living organisms? Are genes not naturally occuring?

I strongly believe that all genetic patents should be invalid. No one can "own" life, or a part of someone's life. How does everyone else feel about this issue?

I feel the same way. I don't think it should happen at all. Exept there's a snag for me because I think that to cure a disease, that it should be allowed, but other than taht, it's just playing god.

Yet another example of how fucked-up Canada is.

This week's special at Shmublix Hormel Brand Human Kidneys!

Only $5999.99! Food Stamps accepted!

Comes with a month's supply of P&G "Mega-Grow!" Angiogenesis Pills!

Don't forget to bring in the ad for a $.03 discount!


...Hey it's not like genetic science reseaches itself.

I feel the same way. I don't think it should happen at all. Exept there's a snag for me because I think that to cure a disease, that it should be allowed, but other than taht, it's just playing god.
I'm not talking about genetically modifying organisms, I'm talking about PATENTING the organisms or whatever that have been modified. Many parts of the human were patented to various companies during the Human Genome Project. If scientists and research companies are continued to allow to patent genes, say the genes for blonde hair, then blonde people are gonna be ending up paying to have blonde hair that they were born naturally with!

Damn, I expected more people to be interested about this issue =P


And ToB, please don't insult my country. I can do the same to yours, and it's not gonna get us anywhere.

And ToB, please don't insult my country. I can do the same to yours, and it's not gonna get us anywhere.

I think you have a lot left to learn about ToB. :)

I think you have a lot left to learn about ToB. :)
Bleh.

hfewhifhwaeuifhalif

Once again, before everyone interjects their uninformed opinions in this debate, let's all read about exactly what a plant patent is (since most patented GMO's are plants).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1

also check this (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/mceowen/McEowJuly04.htm) out for some information about the case referred to in this topic

this little blurb is interesting too (http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03830.cfm)

Once again, before everyone interjects their uninformed opinions in this debate, let's all read about exactly what a plant patent is (since most patented GMO's are plants).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/#1
And what about when we start cloning, say organs? Or when we're advanced enough to do things like choose gender, hair colour etc for our babies? Or change our own hair colour etc by altering our genes? I'm sure someone gonna patent those genes. Different parts of human DNA has already been patented by various research companies during the Human Genome Project. Patenting genes for certain hair colour or eye colour etc. is just one small step away.

And even patenting plants is ridiculous. Just look at the lawsuit filed against that Canadian farmer. Anything living should not be patented, period.

here (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml) is a link to the human genome project information about gene patenting. Let me point out that the Human Genome Project only describes a general arrangement of genetic code in the human species. It does not necessarily describe the function of every gene in the human species.


Now back to the issues which you are worried about.

One can not patent a gene for hair or eye color because in order to obtain a patent, a novel use must be demonstrated. Simply isolating the gene for hair color is not sufficient. However, if a scientist were to develope a process for treating albinism using genes for skin, hair and eye color, the process itself would be patentable and the use of certain genes may also be patentable.

Additionally, your fears of patenting organs are unfounded. Organ formation, development and function is controlled by thousands of genes, and it would be impossible to elucidate the functions of every one. Even if someone were to describe the genetics of organ development, they would still only be describing a phenomenon that occurs naturally, which is in itself unpatentable. However, if someone were to develope a process for growing human organs outside of the human body, that process would be patentable because it represents a novel use of the genes, and a new technology.

As far as plant patents are concerned, the plant patent act was introduced to allow plant breeders the same rights as other people who develope, or concieve new products. Most patented plants are the result of extensive traditional breeding work, not genetic modification by inserting genes from other organisms. Plant breeding research programs cost a significant amount of money, and the financiers of such programs expect to recover their investments. The patent system is in place to allow these companies to recoup their investments and to protect their products from exploitation by other companies.

Plant breeding may use genes which already exist, but directed breeding work produces individual plants which posess combinations of traits which would not occur under normal conditions of darwinian evolution. (ie: evolution. the genes exist, but under natural selection, such genetic combinations might not occur of thousands of years) Plant breeders accelerate genetic rearrangement in search of, or in order to develope certain characteristics. The resulting plants would not occur naturally without the intervention of the breeders, and they are therefore a novel product and are patentable.

As far as GMO products are concerned, they are certainly novel products and should be patentable. Most GMO products are developed by the insertion of a gene, which encodes a function that does not occur withen the modified species naturally. For example, the most widely known GMO product, and the one that sparked the whole debate about the safety and ethics of genetic modification, is Bt corn. (It must be noted that safety and ethics are beyond the scope of the proposed debate) This is a plant that contains a gene for an insecticidal toxin which is produced by bacteria. The gene was inserted into corn plants which resulted in the production of the toxin in the corn plant itself. The company that developed this type of corn was able to obtain a patent because they inserted a bacterial gene into a plant and they were able to make it function by producing the toxin. (Consult a genetics textbook for an explanation of why this is a novel technique) The production of Bt corn was a novel use of a naturally occuring gene, and thus the company was able to obtain a patent.

The example cited in Canada concerns other issues of patent rights. A company (monsanto) developed an herbicide called "round up" which kills most plants. In addition, they figured out the biochemical mechanism through which this herbicide acts to kill plants. They then found a genetic way to confer resistance to this herbicide. It involved inserting a gene which disrupts the biochemical activity of the herbicide, hence the name "round up ready" plants. (Again, this was a novel development and as such was patentable.)

The company then sold seeds for "round-up ready" plants under license with the stipulation that farmers could not collect and use seeds from the plants. This is much like when you license a copy of software from a company. You are legally free to use it on a computer, and make 1 back-up copy, but you are not allowed to make copies and distribute them or sell them for profit. Unlike software, however, plants have the ability to reproduce themselves. Part of the license agreement for patented plants is that you are not permitted to use seeds or make cuttings to reproduce a patented plant. (current research is directed towards making GMO plants sterile, so that this question will be out of the hands of consumers)

What the canadian farmer, and many others, did was to knowlingly collect seeds from plants which posessed the patented trait (resistance to "round-up" herbicide) In essence they violated the licensing agreement. They might have won the case if they had not argued against the patentability of the plants themselves, and had taken the stance that they had no control over the spread of the patented gene through "genetic contamination". (this argument would have failed though because the farmers collected seeds from plants that were known to be resistant to the herbicide) Instead the lawyers chose to attack patent law, a defense which failed as well because the farmers agreed to the licensing contract when they purchased the seeds. But, they also admitted to collecting seeds from plants which were obviously round-up resistent, and therefore were included in the licensing agreement.

While I do agree with Fweddie that a single gene sequence in its natural form should be unpatentable, if someone discovers a novel use for the gene, it should be patentable. As far as the fears of genetic control of human traits by corporations is concerned, I think that they are unfounded.

Edit: before responding to this post, I suggest that you thoroughly read the information presented in the links that I previously posted.