4 ms·

I agree that it seems, by today's standards, a non-issue. And in reality perhaps it is just my active imagination that is the enemy here. Although I would pos

I agree that it seems, by today's standards, a non-issue. And in reality perhaps it is just my active imagination that is the enemy here. Although I would posit that though 7-10 years seems like a reasonable timeframe to most people today, it will probably appear to be a lifetime to future generations. If you really think about it, how long do Cell Phones last on the market before they're no longer a threat commercially? If I had to put a number to it I'd say no more than 1 year. After that you better have something new, and hopefully patented to prevent competition. Now amplify that by 2x, maybe 3x, or 10x. Now perhaps only the patent holder has legal rights to experiment on a given range of problems (given the nature of the patent). I imagine if someone plays their cards right, and hits the "patent lottery", you end up with a "waterfall-effect", or in other words, centuries worth of patents by a single entity with no end in sight. Perhaps those in the field recognize that biology is just as diverse if not more diverse than most other fields. And my concern could be a red herring. I, personally, have no doubt that the field of biology is enormously diverse, and in most academic settings I'd consider this pretty much a non-issue. I think the over-arching fear is the US has nominated 9 people, none of whom are likely to know a significant amount about genetic engineering, to decide (in essence) the fate of genetic engineering and the "patentability" of specific inventions / discoveries. What I think the field of genetic engineering may need in its future, is the equivalent of a Linus Torvalds in their field. Someone who will cut through the BS, and donate the overwhelming majority of their work / research to the public domain to prevent or reduce the possibility of some calamitous scenario from unfolding.

ci5er 11y ago
The 20-years-from-file is a recent change. It used to be 17-years-from-grant. The timelines can be dealt with statutorily. I have no doubt that large amounts of biological data will be freely available to the market. And many foundational techniques (such as PCR, and now CRISPR) have quite a long useful lifespan. It isn't as if digital cellular telephony wasn't known before Nokia, just that some vendors (Motorola) misjudged and stuck with analog too long after the cost calculus changed. You raise an interesting question about waterfall effects. I'll have to ponder this some. In any case, say this does happen - the patent holder gets very rich (fairly or not) and the world gets a constant stream of always better innovative biotech. I don't understand how the world suffers whether the beneficiary of the dollar flow is one entity or a hundred.
- datashovel 11y ago
  I agree that, in general, the likely outcome is progress. The question in most cases is how fast progress will "progress" :) Open source has (I think at this point) proven that openness and transparency accelerates progress. But openness only thrives when the entire cycle is not fulfilling a single entity's net worth. In fact my theory on the fate of money in general is that accumulating large sums of it will become far less important in the future, and so will the likelihood that a CEO would feel compelled to push their company toward that end. I'm certainly not net-negative on my outlook / perspective on human nature. I am, however, one who would promote a "trust but verify" philosophy.
  - ci5er 11y ago
    Certainly, the weight of the factors of production have changed. Land to factories to paying the salaries of knowledge workers. Who could decide to cooperatively own their own work product and pay themselves out of cash flows. I don't know that I am a "trust but verify" person as much as a "don't solve problems before they occur" person, because: 1) The solution may cause more problems than the problem, 2) We had a different problem than the one expected occur. If anything, the world seems to be progressing at a pretty good clip and not slowing down. In almost every fundamental field - bio, materials, physics etc. And it does so in the presence of a patent system that may or may not be retarding progress, but if it is, it's not doing a very good job of it. Things like Uber and Open Source and the like make me inclined towards: "Leave it alone, and see what happens".
    - datashovel 11y ago
      That's an important point. I think (in general) a well-educated population, coupled with transparency of policy, almost certainly negates the possibility of long-term nefarious action. Even bad decisions can be reversed in general (in a properly functioning government). So to a point I definitely agree, but would generally promote a more pro-active philosophy to help ensure slimy situations don't sneak up on you.
      - 11y ago
hackuser 11y ago
> What I think the field of genetic engineering may need in its future, is the equivalent of a Linus Torvalds in their field. Someone who will cut through the BS, and donate the overwhelming majority of their work / research to the public domain to prevent or reduce the possibility of some calamitous scenario from unfolding. Didn't most research used to be published openly in scientific journals? Has that changed, or was that a golden age that never existed? Based on my meager understanding, openly sharing research was one of Bacon's foundations of the Enlightenment and the scientific enterprise.
- datashovel 11y ago
  Definitely. Although my understanding is that patents will be filed and awarded. Which will essentially cut all "outsiders" from profiting from the research, which ultimately helps corporations perpetuate their R&D lifecycle. Forgive me if I'm misinformed here, but Monsanto may be a good example of a corporation who has put their GMO patents to good use to gain enormous market share in agriculture.
- ejlperello 11y ago
  The CRISPR IP battle is being fought between universities, not corporations. CRISPR aside, the IP situation in biotech and specifically in synthetic biology (parts-based biology) is not a good one. Currently there exists IP around many small DNA components (you can think of them as genes though this wouldnt be correct in all cases - more like DNA programs). Currently in biology, if I want to build a composite part, that incorporates many separate parts, each with IP around them, I need to get a license for all of those parts. The tech industry had a similar problem back in the "golden age" of computer parts development. It is often so expensive and difficult for any innovation to happen to happen under these circumstances, as so many patents and licenses and what not must be obtained, which typically frightens investors from putting cash in small startups. The tech industry has solved this with EDA tools - we need something similar in biotech. What I'd call a DNA Part or cassette, techs call an "IP" or silicone block IP. They have worked out a system where it appears the big design software houses act as brokers and clearing houses for their users. They aggregate not only the necessary licenses, but also the documentation and design rules for how to use a specific part. Then the design tool compiles all these parts down into something that is sent for synthesis by the foundry. They're really light years ahead of the biotech industry on this. I recommend this fascinating overview of how intellectual property rights in integrated circuit design have evolved. It would be great to see similar things happen in my industry. http://timreview.ca/article/442 http://timreview.ca/article/442

ci5er 11y ago

The 20-years-from-file is a recent change. It used to be 17-years-from-grant. The timelines can be dealt with statutorily. I have no doubt that large amounts of biological data will be freely available to the market. And many foundational techniques (such as PCR, and now CRISPR) have quite a long useful lifespan. It isn't as if digital cellular telephony wasn't known before Nokia, just that some vendors (Motorola) misjudged and stuck with analog too long after the cost calculus changed. You raise an interesting question about waterfall effects. I'll have to ponder this some. In any case, say this does happen - the patent holder gets very rich (fairly or not) and the world gets a constant stream of always better innovative biotech. I don't understand how the world suffers whether the beneficiary of the dollar flow is one entity or a hundred.

datashovel 11y ago
I agree that, in general, the likely outcome is progress. The question in most cases is how fast progress will "progress" :) Open source has (I think at this point) proven that openness and transparency accelerates progress. But openness only thrives when the entire cycle is not fulfilling a single entity's net worth. In fact my theory on the fate of money in general is that accumulating large sums of it will become far less important in the future, and so will the likelihood that a CEO would feel compelled to push their company toward that end. I'm certainly not net-negative on my outlook / perspective on human nature. I am, however, one who would promote a "trust but verify" philosophy.
- ci5er 11y ago
  Certainly, the weight of the factors of production have changed. Land to factories to paying the salaries of knowledge workers. Who could decide to cooperatively own their own work product and pay themselves out of cash flows. I don't know that I am a "trust but verify" person as much as a "don't solve problems before they occur" person, because: 1) The solution may cause more problems than the problem, 2) We had a different problem than the one expected occur. If anything, the world seems to be progressing at a pretty good clip and not slowing down. In almost every fundamental field - bio, materials, physics etc. And it does so in the presence of a patent system that may or may not be retarding progress, but if it is, it's not doing a very good job of it. Things like Uber and Open Source and the like make me inclined towards: "Leave it alone, and see what happens".
  - datashovel 11y ago
    That's an important point. I think (in general) a well-educated population, coupled with transparency of policy, almost certainly negates the possibility of long-term nefarious action. Even bad decisions can be reversed in general (in a properly functioning government). So to a point I definitely agree, but would generally promote a more pro-active philosophy to help ensure slimy situations don't sneak up on you.
    - 11y ago

hackuser 11y ago

> What I think the field of genetic engineering may need in its future, is the equivalent of a Linus Torvalds in their field. Someone who will cut through the BS, and donate the overwhelming majority of their work / research to the public domain to prevent or reduce the possibility of some calamitous scenario from unfolding. Didn't most research used to be published openly in scientific journals? Has that changed, or was that a golden age that never existed? Based on my meager understanding, openly sharing research was one of Bacon's foundations of the Enlightenment and the scientific enterprise.

datashovel 11y ago
Definitely. Although my understanding is that patents will be filed and awarded. Which will essentially cut all "outsiders" from profiting from the research, which ultimately helps corporations perpetuate their R&D lifecycle. Forgive me if I'm misinformed here, but Monsanto may be a good example of a corporation who has put their GMO patents to good use to gain enormous market share in agriculture.
ejlperello 11y ago
The CRISPR IP battle is being fought between universities, not corporations. CRISPR aside, the IP situation in biotech and specifically in synthetic biology (parts-based biology) is not a good one. Currently there exists IP around many small DNA components (you can think of them as genes though this wouldnt be correct in all cases - more like DNA programs). Currently in biology, if I want to build a composite part, that incorporates many separate parts, each with IP around them, I need to get a license for all of those parts. The tech industry had a similar problem back in the "golden age" of computer parts development. It is often so expensive and difficult for any innovation to happen to happen under these circumstances, as so many patents and licenses and what not must be obtained, which typically frightens investors from putting cash in small startups. The tech industry has solved this with EDA tools - we need something similar in biotech. What I'd call a DNA Part or cassette, techs call an "IP" or silicone block IP. They have worked out a system where it appears the big design software houses act as brokers and clearing houses for their users. They aggregate not only the necessary licenses, but also the documentation and design rules for how to use a specific part. Then the design tool compiles all these parts down into something that is sent for synthesis by the foundry. They're really light years ahead of the biotech industry on this. I recommend this fascinating overview of how intellectual property rights in integrated circuit design have evolved. It would be great to see similar things happen in my industry. http://timreview.ca/article/442 http://timreview.ca/article/442