This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← My Beautiful Genome

My Beautiful Genome - Comments

PaulJ's Avatar Comment 1 by PaulJ

First video link is bad.

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:53:03 UTC | #872824

Chris Boccia's Avatar Comment 2 by Chris Boccia

Again, the first video link is not working. Please fix.

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:31:27 UTC | #872838

grahamulator's Avatar Comment 3 by grahamulator

Comment Removed by Author

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:59:54 UTC | #872928

grahamulator's Avatar Comment 4 by grahamulator

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:04:39 UTC | #872929

/Mike's Avatar Comment 5 by /Mike

links updated, all play now

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:55:52 UTC | #872936

dloubet's Avatar Comment 6 by dloubet

Empowering maybe, but what do you call it when a company copyrights your genetic information for the products they sell?

I understand that actually happens. Am I completely wrong?

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:19:28 UTC | #872953

Absinthius's Avatar Comment 7 by Absinthius

Comment #6

I'm not sure that patenting genes is possible in every country. At least it shouldn't be, you can't patent something everyone already has.. I vaguely recall reading in the news that a big pharmaceutical company who submitted a patent request for a gene was denied. But I don't know how many of them are submitted on an annual scale though.

Perhaps someone with more law/patent knowledge knows?

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:22:43 UTC | #873002

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 8 by DavidMcC

There are clearly problems with patents on certain kinds of genes in the US:

Wikipedia on gene patents

Professional societies of pathologists have criticized patents on disease genes and exclusive licenses to perform DNA diagnostic tests. In the 2009 Myriad case, doctors and pathologists complained that the patent on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes prevented patients from receiving second opinions on their test results. Pathologists complained that the patent prevented them from carrying out their medical practice of doing diagnostic tests on patient samples and interpreting the results.[7]

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:08:19 UTC | #873057

Perfect Tommy's Avatar Comment 9 by Perfect Tommy

Comment 8 by DavidMcC :

There are clearly problems with patents on certain kinds of genes in the US:

Wikipedia on gene patents

Professional societies of pathologists have criticized patents on disease genes and exclusive licenses to perform DNA diagnostic tests. In the 2009 Myriad case, doctors and pathologists complained that the patent on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes prevented patients from receiving second opinions on their test results. Pathologists complained that the patent prevented them from carrying out their medical practice of doing diagnostic tests on patient samples and interpreting the results.[7]

That alone should be grounds enough for being unethical and patently absurd. Pun intended. The genetic code of a living species isn't the same as landing on the moon and sticking a flag on it and pronouncing to the world it yours. Creating a gene might be another argument.

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:45:28 UTC | #873982

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 10 by DavidMcC

Comment 9 by Perfect Tommy

The genetic code of a living species isn't the same as landing on the moon and sticking a flag on it and pronouncing to the world it yours. Creating a gene might be another argument

Quite so, Tommy. Here's another quote from the same Wiki article:

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, upheld the first patent on a newly-created living organism, a bacterium for digesting crude oil in oil spills. The patent examiner for the United States Patent and Trademark Office had rejected the patent of a living organism, but Chakrabarty appealed. As a rule, raw natural material is generally rejected for patent approval by the USPTO. The Court ruled that as long as the organism is truly "man-made," such as through genetic engineering, then it is patentable. Because the DNA of Chakrabarty's organism was modified, it was patentable.

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:48:08 UTC | #874361