Since your assertions about FDA and GMO are so nebulous and ill-defined .... "bad science" is as descriptive as you're able to get, its hard to know if I believe the opposite of what you do or not. You haven't even said what you believe. I don't think you can describe what you believe.
Nothing I've said about patents was misinformed. What I've posted has been basic but factual ... as opposed to anything you've posted.
--------------------------------------------------
Just to demonstrate what argumentation is like, here's a bit off the top of my head:
If intellectual property rights for biotech advances weren't recognized (as you may think, we don't know since you can't define what you think), many new drugs and new varieties of crops wouldn't exist. Mankind would be less prosperous, less healthy, and more likely to die sooner. Its hard to see what would be good about that.
I would also point out that patents only give ownership of the patented invention or discovery for a short period .... 18 years, it seems in the case of crop advances. So its not a case of patenting giving perpetual property rights to the patent owner. Instead the patent owner simply has a monopoly on exploitation of the new invention or discovery for a limited period.
Re. your mumblings about God's DNA .... well, we can also assert truthfully that the entire universe, our planet and everything on it, including us, our DNA, and the very concept of DNA .... is all God's. That doesn't mean its wrong for humans to recognize property rights of other humans in land, lower creatures, and intellectual property. All major religions recognize that ownership of property rights is moral ly valid and even tell their followers to respect property rights others (thou shalt not steal, covet, etc).
Is patenting of genetic engineered DNA simply the appropriation of something that already existed? I'm not sure from your vague posts if you think this .... but in case you do, I'll point out that insertion of a particular snippet of DNA that protects from fungi or disease, from one organism nto another, say a tomato, does in fact produce something novel and new. While that snippet of DNA may have existed somewhere in nature previously ... in a tomato its new. Accordingly, it would seem to meet the requirement of being something new that is patentable.
All in all, I'll sum up: While its possible that one product or some products of genetic engineering might turn out to be bad - bad, because it produces something that is harmful, its clearly not the case that all genetic engineering will be harmful. Most will likely be beneficial and should be encouraged. Its simply a new technology to do what humans have been doing for thousands of years, improving the crops and animals we depend on. |
