< 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
No, I asked what you believed (not know) and why. As for what you know, it wouldn't seem much ... or perhaps you're just not any good at written communication.
--------------------------------------------
Not suprising, immature scaredy cats usually react very reactive... especially when they know they are out of their league.
Well, that could explain your name-calling.
----------------------------------------------
The rest is once again YOUR IDEA of my position, not my position.
Once more, CLARIFY your position.
--------------------------------------------
<If intellectual property rights for biotech advances weren't recognized>
Who is talking about that?
You were, or you seemed as if you were, attacking the very premise of patenting genetic information.
Which would prevent biotech advances.
---------------------------------------------
I was VERY SPECIFIC...
LOL
in fact own a large investment in a biotech firm AND spent years analyzing them...
I don't believe the analyzing part. Any analyst would be able to communicate through the written word and you've shown no ability to do that here.
--------------------------------------------
if you scroll back on SI you may find I was a HUGE booster of biotech here when it was ridiculously cheap:
I see your examples of sounding off on lgnd and incy in 1999. Yeah they were cheap then. Cheaper now.
-----------------------------------------------
<That doesn't mean its wrong for humans to recognize property rights of other humans in land,>
Nor does it address patents...
Since patents are property rights, sure it does.
--------------------------------------------------
let alone specific gene patents I spoke of.
Specific?
------------------------------------------------
<Is patenting of genetic engineered DNA simply the appropriation of something that already existed?>
Again, NOT the issue pointed out
You didn't point out any issue except undefined "bad science".
My last post was an example of stating an opinion and presenting rational arguments for it.
Try it sometime.
-------------------------------------------------
...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.
Yeah, "genes that have been around forever", but in the organizsm for which the patent is granted? That would be where the invention would lie.
To choose an example, one could patent (or copyright) a design for a machine part that is exactly like something that appears in nature. The design wouldn't be original but the use in something else would be.
----------------------------------------------------
BUT it's actually a good question! You're studying!!
No, I was writing off the top of my head.
------------------------------------------
The answer is complex... what does the "genetically engineered" DNA include?
Again, completely off the top of my head, I would say genetically engineered means changed or moved by human action.
-------------------------------------------
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?
Maybe, depends on the conditions. Using a completely made up example, suppose someone inserts genetic material to create something, say insulin, into a bacteria where it normally doesn't appear. Then the idea would be to use the bacteria as a factory to produce the insulin.
Feel free to substitute something else besides insulin. The idea is whats important. I'd say something like I just wrote would be 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.>
Agreed, and stated that in one of my first posts.
No, I remember this. I stated the above in one of the first posts on this subject and I seem to recall you responded with insults ... implying you disagreed.
------------------------------------------------
You really have to pay attention to what I say
I am. What you say or don't say is the problem. You suck at written communication.
------------------------------------------------
<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.
No, putting a gene froma fish into a tomato hasn't been going on - its a new technology - notice above I said that.
Human manipulation of plants and animals using whatever technology is at hand .... selective breeding, grafting ... is whats been going on for thousands of years. |
