< its hard to know if I believe the opposite of what you do or not>
That's NOT what you said, in fact if you scroll back, you'll see YOU NEVER EVEN ASKED about what I knew about it... you out of hand declared you believed the opposite.
Not suprising, immature scaredy cats usually react very reactive... especially when they know they are out of their league.
The rest is once again YOUR IDEA of my position, not my position.
<If intellectual property rights for biotech advances weren't recognized>
Who is talking about that? I was VERY SPECIFIC... in fact own a large investment in a biotech firm AND spent years analyzing them... if you scroll back on SI you may find I was a HUGE booster of biotech here when it was ridiculously cheap:
Subject 26118
Go to biotech boards in the 90's.
Further to patents re. "tools":
<<You know it's funny how one can whine about "royalty stacking"... If I were to form a risky venture, I would love everyone to let me use their tools for a piece of the pie instead of having to buy them or rent them with upfront money. Who are we kidding, if the things a bust no one gets a dime, just as it should be. It's all a matter of how big the royalty demanded, slam it in a spread sheet and see if the project makes sense. If not, bid the tool owner lower...>>
LLCF
Huh!? REALLY sounds like an anti-biotech type you have categorized me as in you mind doesnt it??
Message 10308903
Here's the number one gene and SNP patenter (at the time... donno where it stands now:
Message 10516474
<That doesn't mean its wrong for humans to recognize property rights of other humans in land,>
Nor does it address patents... let alone specific gene patents I spoke of.
<Is patenting of genetic engineered DNA simply the appropriation of something that already existed?>
Again, NOT the issue pointed out...BUT... getting to the main point: AS FAR AS I KNOW there is NO PATENT on ANY DNA that doesnt include genes from organisms that have nothing to do with conventional use of the term "invention"... ie. they are using genes that have essentially been around forever.
BUT it's actually a good question! You're studying!! Nice. The answer is complex... what does the "genetically engineered" DNA include?
Example: Can a scientist patent the gene (by defintion, NOT novel... unless some scientist has actually created some gene since I looked years ago) for production of a protien or enzyme needed by the human body?
<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.>
Agreed, and stated that in one of my first posts. You really have to pay attention to what I say, rather than assume I have a certain position.
<Most will likely be beneficial and should be encouraged.>
Time will tell... I have no opinion on that.
<Its simply a new technology to do what humans have been doing for thousands of years, improving the crops and animals we depend on.>
IT's MUCH MORE than that... but I'll drop it. Suffice it to say that putting a gene from a fish into a tomato (for example, but plenty of GE is included) HAS NOT been going on for thousands of years.
DAK |
