J. Craig Venter creates artificial life!

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, well not really, but that's what he claimed to do and that's what the headlines read. In reality, Venter sequenced a bacterial genome (so he had stored on his computer a list for its genetic code, ie ATTACGACCT...) and then used that sequence to assemble (or as he said, "synthesize") a matching genome. He then took this assembled genome and inserted it into a bacterial cell which had had its genome removed, resulting in a transformed cell that turned into a copy the original bacteria.

The concerning part is the fact that Venter wants to patent his "artificial" life. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10150685.stm He has come under fire before for wanting to patent genomes, and the law has not yet established how intellectual property should generalize to genetic information. What do you think about the prospect of patenting life, or at least of patenting some aspects of it?

The process of patenting was devised to encourage invention and creativity by rewarding the creator financially with a limited monopoly on the invention.The system has gradually become more of a process of suppressing than encouraging creativity and that is in question.

People are still caught up in the idea that information can and should be owned. This will hold back science, and in turn humanity, until it has been completely abolished.

Some things simply should not be patentable. Biotechnology companies have already tried to patent genomes of genetically engineered food products. Can imagine if they hold the third world hostage just because those countries grow food that the biotechnology own the IP to?

How are they "held hostage". If advanced countries have the technology to advance biological technology how is that "holding them hostage". Let us assume that in the advanced countries we stop "exploiting" the wretched of the earth. Would that improve their situation? I think not. It was the advanced countries that produced the "green revolution" and put an end to famines that re-occurred every five or ten years.

When I was a kid there was a famine in India every other year. When was the last famine in India. It was input from the advanced countries and their technology that put an end to that.

ruveyn

I'm not against other countries possessing that technology per se. In fact, used in the right way, this technology can and will benefit the third world. What the concern is, is that owning patents to genetically engineered crops could force poor countries to keep paying those biotech companies just to keep planting their own crops when they don't necessarily have the money. They actually do have the right to grow their own economy without being completely dependent on someone else. It's not just me, there is major controversy over whether GMO's should or should not be patentable.

I don't see the argument.

You seem to be saying that it is extortion for the biotechnology company to require payment for an economic good that they worked to create. I have difficulties understanding the argument because it seems like any other economic good created, but we do not think that automobile dealers extort us by demanding payment or any other group either. I don't think that the tangibility is an important aspect either when measuring extortion. So, I don't see the "extortion" argument.

One example put forward in this regard is that of genetically modified crops with vastly superior yield, but designed to be "suicide seeds" that will not propagate beyond one generation (basically the equivalent of organic DRM). This leaves impoverished farmers dependent upon the biotech company distributing the seeds, and the prices are often higher than they can afford. Also worrying is the possibility of monopoly in the market, with Monsanto holding a huge share of the patents on various biotechnologies.

I see that many people have voted in favor of public domain genomics. One objection commonly heard to this proposal is that it would compromise individual privacy if someone cannot control their own genomic data, which is why I included a separate option for that. Any thoughts on the privacy side of this? How do we strike a balance between individual privacy over your own medical information and the need of researchers to have data for study and comparison? Can insurance companies discriminate on the basis of genetic data? (This one is probably a null point, since they are no longer even allowed to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions) Should there be a massive database of people's genomes? If so, who should control it and what should it be used for?

Yes, but that's still not extortion. The suicide seeds don't exist until they are invented, and when they are invented, they are just an option that farmers can use to improve themselves. This isn't to say that the farmers are in a great economic position, or that the company is being generous, but this doesn't seem to be extortion any more than any other market behavior. Let's just say that instead of seeds, Monsanto, or whoever, offers a super-fertilizer, but it only will work for one generation. Economically, this seems to be the exact same situation as with the seeds, but I don't think anybody would argue extortion for an offer of fertilizer.

That's kind of the thrust of my argument on that matter.

Consider genomic data like one would consider a trade-secret. That is to say that genomic data could be protected by the contractual arrangements involved in the extraction of said data. After all, I would have some doubts that one could collect a good sample for this without consent.

Actually, I don't see a problem with an insurance company discriminating based upon genetic data, as their goal is risk-pooling. If something helps them with that, then the issue is less one of them using the data so much as their right to get the data.

For various reasons, the pre-existing varieties of seeds are no longer a viable option. Essentially, the farmers must purchase Monsanto seeds or starve, and unlike with any kind of seed that has ever existed before, you must purchase new seeds again next season.

Now, I see your argument, but I still feel a bit of a qualm knowing that one corporation has complete control over a massive portion of the world's food supply. They can make an economic decision to maximize profits, but the thing is that this will result in famine and starvation for large numbers of people. At what point, if ever, does human life trump the ability of a biotech company to make a few extra bucks?

Patenting "life" is fine if it's a patent on a production process. For instance, oil companies want synthetic bacteria for cleaner, more efficient oil refining. I suppose this decade will see synthetic bacteria for waste/sewage management, power generation, farming, and tons of stuff I can't even dream about.

Even if the concern is about owning life, it's really no different ethically than owning livestock. All one owns is a productive means. Now, patenting a process to create synthetic humans would be a problem, but that won't happen for at least a few decades.

The question is really only whether Monsanto is the source of the problems, or just a provider of a solution. (Note: I am not talking about the real Monsanto, as this is still a philosophical debate where the name was provided as the name of a hypothetical seed provider.)

Let's say that for various reasons pre-existing providers of pesticide are no longer an option. A new pest has gotten into the region, and only one pesticide works. Is it extortion to provide this pesticide?


At what point does it become right to coerce someone for your own cause?

I think I see your reasoning to some extent, but your reasoning doesn't make the company wrong, or even supremely evil. They exist to serve their stockholders, and what they are doing is just a natural operation of the market. The only real difference is just that there is an outcome that is considered more socially unacceptable. I wouldn't blame the company too much for this, but rather I might instead think that instead those opposed should try to prevent these undesirable outcomes.

Now, in terms of social policy, we might argue that IP is not the most socially desirable way to manage the economic issue, but obviously if we are talking about our impoverished farmers, having IP and the option of seeds is better than no IP and no seeds. This is not a claim about the outcomes of IP vs no-IP, but rather a basic point about consequences to some extent, and I am not even saying that the assumptions match reality either, as reality is likely more complex than this oversimplified story. However, I still do not see extortion in this situation, at least not compared to the overall workings of a market economy, and I don't see much reason to go around with a dire hatred of capitalism at this point given that flaws would exist in any form of economic organization.

Could be a little bit of both.


Well, that happened, and Monsanto provides pesticides. They also provide the only crops that can survive their pesticide.


According to that Friedman excerpt you posted recently, when your cause is sufficiently important. In this particular instance, weighing potentially millions of lives against the profit motive becomes a fairly simple judgment for most people.


Agreed, which is why the issue has to be about the legal structure that are put in place to try to mitigate or avoid such problems.

To get a bit closer back to the original thrust of the thread, Venter believes that one day he will genetically engineer microorganisms that can clean up oil spills like the one in the Gulf, and other microorganisms that will produce oil for us, making oil drilling obsolete. He has all sorts of other grand plans, but let's ask: can he patent his genetically modified organisms? In all cases of genetically modified organisms thus far, no original content is created, but rather existing components from different organisms are mixed and matched. Does this constitute an original creation that can be patented? Should it be patented? Should a private individual (or corporation) be able to control access to a sequenced genome?

Ok, so let's say that Monsanto provides pesticides, without which it is impractical to grow crops, but the only crops that can survive are Monsanto. I'd still not see a wrong, as they are still just providing solutions. If they weren't providing the truth about the outcomes of the use of their pesticide, then I see a good case for some wrong on their end, but if this is basically a pesticide-seed deal, then there is no problem.


Orwell, you know that there are other alternatives that don't require coercion, and you also know that coercion will distort the market process. In a situation like this, I would actually consider subsidies to be a much better solution than forcing Monsanto to alter its pricing strategy, so long as Monsanto was responding to business concerns rather than playing a political game. Even further, I already pointed out that the idea of IP is fair game to be questioned in the first place.


Well, I don't think that Monsanto's behavior is the problem(at least the increasingly less theoretical Monsanto), it is part of the solution, because it's high returns provide the labs that allow for these kinds of technologies to be created in the first place. Orwell, you should know that economists aren't very opposed to price gouging, many even openly defending it(I can provide a large number of links), but your argument is taking the kind of structure that an anti-price gouging argument would.

As it stands, I don't think that this is a "legal structure" problem, unless you are questioning IP rules on their efficiency grounds. Rather, I think that the real question is the culture. The ideal solution would actually be the charitable subsidization of farm resources, given that transfer payments do less to distort market processes than other methods. Now one might mean "legal structure" to have the charity in question be a government. However, I would question a more intrusive regulation on the market process as good unless it really was the best solution to avoid a poor outcome. After all, I am not outright opposing David Friedman's position, but I think, and I would imagine that he would agree, that a more restrictive solution would not be one of the better solutions.


I see no problems with it that are unlike other IP rules.