J. Craig Venter creates artificial life!

Post Reply New Topic

OK, so to get back to Venter: he raced against the Human Genome Project to sequence the human genome. Had he won the race, he intended to withhold that genetic information from anyone who didn't pay for it. Can someone claim to own a genetic sequence? For instance, if Venter (or someone else) sequences some animal's genome, do they now own it?

Well, given that the issue is the information found via research, I don't see why the ownership of information is different.

Am I missing something here? It just seems to be the same as any other IP situation.

I think that Sand's remark is really more central to the IP debate than the fact that this is genetic information.

So you're the one who voted "first come, first serve." Part of it is in the context of the broader IP debate, although I would argue that the case for IP protection is much weaker in the sciences, especially biology. For one, there is often public funding of significant parts of biological research, thus the benefits should also be public. Also, there is a vested social interest in making sure that the results of this kind of research are broadly available. Science must be built on a foundation of openness. A researcher who withholds his or her data does a great disservice to the rest of the scientific community, and hinders progress.

Well, actually I did, however, I think I really would have preferred "All genetic information is public domain", given that I think I tend to mildly oppose IP on similar grounds to the kind that Sand put forward, and that your article put forward. I just wasn't thinking, but considered all IP equally valid, so I considered this as valid as all the rest of IP, and yeah.... I still actually regret my vote.

And, you are right, IP protection is less common in the sciences. There is public funding, and public funding could be granted on the provision of openness. However, I am more willing to accept first-come, first-serve, simply because I don't think biotech is fundamentally different than other tech.

In a lot of ways, it is. I mean, patenting the type of genetically modified organisms that Venter is likely to produce is roughly akin to patenting the "car with built-in radio." It's taking two pre-existing things and combining them in a useful way, rather than any truly novel technological development. True synthetic biology (where we can actually write new genomes to our own specifications) is still many years away.

I wouldn't actually know the specific details about the specific patent Venter is pursuing. To me, the real questions are going to revolve around whether the patent is too broad, and whether the patent represents a large enough investment to warrant protection. Venter might be too broad, as your article already suggests that, but that doesn't mean that no genetic research is really that problematic to patent, outside of the problems of other patents.

There's a lot about the whole thing that I just can't really say I know enough to make a judgement.

Really, it depends on what it'll be used for. Casual use genetic modifications should be treated as a commodity to be sold*. Medicinal treatments, however, should be treated as a matter of need.


*I'm saving up to be able to transition to a photosynthesis augmented system.

Patenting genomes? What would the point be? I think patenting the process makes sense, but to patent a who genome would be a waste of time and money, as one can't actually control the natural formation of it, nor can they own a naturally occurring object. It's like trying clam ownership to the north star, or the grand canyon. Although, if the process is patented, it would slow down it's use in public practices. We don't want people going around creating new life forms for fun, or do we? Genetic modification should not, under any circumstances be used on consciousness.

Although, this technology could prove to be invaluable for future genetic research. For the first time in all of human history we are able to create two genetically identical bacteria, via cloning, and then alter specific genes to observe the effects. The technology itself shouldn't be marketed, but the technology it could produce is just too important to ignore. Can you imagine having your computer genetically encrypted. Every person born with an extra gene, in this case a password to be used for identification only. It would have no other effects. Other examples include limb regeneration and custom eye color. Or even better, the ability to consciously control eye color. We could edit the hunger system so that people only desire to eat as much as they need. The benefits are infinite. Just don't touch the consciousness, because that would be bordering totalitarianism.

...that was going on a couple billion years before human history started.

Um... Huh? I must be missing something here. What has been going on for a couple billion years before human history?

In general the patent system was devised to encourage innovation that benefits society and the thought is that an innovator could be encouraged and financed in further efforts by monetary reward. A good many efforts in scientific and technical enterprises are motivated more in the direction of progressing human knowledge rather than seeking economic success although no one of normal needs and desires would discard the possibility of making a good deal of money from a discovery if that is a possibility. I sincerely doubt Einstein or Feynman or others of that caliber entered their fields with the concept of becoming rich through their discoveries although what they accomplished did enrich many others through specific applications.There is no doubt that people with only money in mind when working in innovative fields have contributed both negatively and positively to human culture and the problem resolves in sifting out the negatives from the positives. It's not an easy problem, but the money people have a way of perverting creative effort to improve society that is very discouraging.The more that money motives get involved with innovation the more society is likely to suffer rather than gain from monetary rewards for innovation.

I voted for the public domain option as the closest to what I would want, but I didn't interpret it to violate privacy rights. You can make all the sequences public domain without connecting any of the sequences to the individuals they came from, for example. I also don't think that artificial sequences - such as in genetically modified crops - should be public domain; it's just the naturally occurring sequences that should be public domain.

I rejected the "everyone owns their own genome" as being naively unrealistic. Who would "own" the 90+% of human DNA that we all have in common, if it weren't in the public domain?

With respect to privacy rights, I do think there are major concerns, but they're unrelated to intellectual property. For example, I'm quite unhappy that the U.S. government is pushing to retain DNA samples of people arrested and found innocent, because that does connect sequences to individuals.

It's not at all clear that discovery and invention are the same thing. You can discover the DNA sequence of some animal, but that doesn't mean you invented it.

Finding an actual use for some portion of the sequence, for example by splicing it into some bacteria that will replicate it faster, that's an invention. That takes a lot more than just sequencing, though.

Nonsense, if a sequence exists it is not hard to figure out who the individual could be.


What about recombinant organisms? Those are currently the only genetically modified organisms, and they strictly speaking do not contain any artificial sequences, but rather have bits and pieces of different organisms mixed together.


Well, everyone owns the rights to the unique portion of their genome then. There will be at least one person willing to make their genome public domain, and that releases any common DNA into public domain with it.

That doesn't seem realistic to me. If the farmer survived on his old seeds last season, he can plant them again.

If he's losing out in the market to other farmers who buy Monsanto's new suicide seeds, that just proves that Monsanto isn't charging too much after all, doesn't it, since other farmers are making more profit despite paying Monsanto for the seeds?


When the patent expires. For example, all the original "green revolution" technology ruveyn mentioned that pretty much put an end to famine way back when is now in the pubilc domain.