Comments on: Michael Crichton: Patenting Life

By: bnsizuxihihe

bnsizuxihihe — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:11:43 +0000

titsiriwicezo…

exruzowozaso…

By: bncakacituvi

bncakacituvi — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:46:52 +0000

titwuzuhopazy…

exsyhohoxany…

By: bnpezowuweke

bnpezowuweke — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:41:21 +0000

tithykezyrovy…

exnyxapepexy…

By: Sinisterslim

Sinisterslim — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:14:55 +0000

Hey stupid, if you had paid attention to what you were reading, you would have seen Chrichton’s reference to legislation titled, “Genomic Research and Accessability Act”, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. That bill is sponsored by Reps. Xavier Bacerra and Dave Weldon.

Shape up man, you’re on a class website,
Common Dreams.org!!!

By: teretree

teretree — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:51:25 +0000

My first reaction was, like GBubbles above, okay, so this is an issue, a problem, now what do we do about it? I thought that Crichton wrote very dramatically and succinctly, but at the end of it all, what did I see? Did I see a link to a website that would connect me to some way to make my voice heard or be able to help in some way? No. I saw a link to his latest book, which connected me to Amazon. So, in the end, Crichton’s message was diluted. He didn’t seem to really care about making a difference. But he did hook a lot of readers who will buy his book. Harrumph.

By: weebler

weebler — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:30:22 +0000

The philosophy behind science is secular–the notion that life can be broken down into components(the attitude behind organ transplants research). It was predictable that someone would look at patenting organism and components of them. The problem extends far beyond the narrow focus of Crchton’s article to the belief that science and research can solve all problems–even ones that it creates. I wonder if Crichton still feels global warming is a sham.

By: GBubbles

GBubbles — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:57:03 +0000

I agree that it’s horrifying. Now I want to know what to do about it.

By: lpenek

lpenek — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:27:52 +0000

Re the last sentence of prev poster: This is very true. In fact gene scanning software makes it easy to detect something that may or may not even BE a gene, a pseudogene or some remnant that just happens to resemble a gene, or is similar to a gene in another organism that does x y or z. People patent them all the same. It’s mad, Madam. Crichton is right, patenting genes is nonsense.

By: Madam Hatter

Madam Hatter — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:45:25 +0000

Excellent – and scary – article. I just read Crichton’s book “Next” in which he addresses this subject – and shows just how horrible this policy could be.

Imagine that your blood carries special antibodies that fight cancer. Then imagine that someone patents them. Then imagine that your blood no longer belongs to you – that the patent holder can harvest his patented gene from you – or your family (who also carries the rare gene) anytime they want. That’s – minimally – the premise. It’s frightening.

As far as the first commentor’s remarks:
Perhaps the idea that the patent office is underfunded IS false (though I don’t know why that govt agency would survive – even with high fees – others haven’t) but even if it is, it doesn’t change the fact that the laws obviously need to be changed. The Supreme Court has made some giant blunders here – hopefully due to faulty intelligence from some source – and they need new laws to give them direction.

And whether or not you get rich from such patents is only but one part of this. The article clearly states that a huge issue is that patent holders can BLOCK valuable, life-saving research just because they own the gene and won’t allow anyone else access to it without paying exorbitant fees – if at all. Therefore, they’re literally holding this research hostage, and if there are no takers – they get no money. But just because there’s no money to be made immediately, they hold on these patents in the hope of future profits.

By: GARBOTOO

GARBOTOO — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:35:07 +0000

This excuse that the patent office is understaffed and underfunded is humbug. The Regan administration figured out how to bleed patent holders for years with initial fee and ongoing incrimental fees. What used to cost hundreds for a simple patent now costs thousands. They get plenty of funding from inventors that are forced to pay continual fees. It’s almost like patents get perpetual care.
Just becasue you get a patent doesn’t mean you are going to get rich either.
There’s got to be more to this story…I believe oversight by a patent examiner is bogus explanation