3 ms·

For me the idea that a company can claim intellectual property rights to a genome sounds pretty awful. To be fair, I don't know if that's a real threat or not,

For me the idea that a company can claim intellectual property rights to a genome sounds pretty awful. To be fair, I don't know if that's a real threat or not, but I could totally see it happening.

epgui 5y ago
Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!
- karmakurtisaani 5y ago
  That gives me a pretty cynical idea: the companies pushing GMOs should start funding and supporting groups who are vocal about the claimed adverse health effects of GMOs. That opposition is easy to argue against in public debate, and the resulting noise conveniently drowns out the real problems. Controlled opposition I think it's called. Not surprisingly, I've learned about this concept from the Russian government.
  - speed_spread 5y ago
    I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.
    - gruez 5y ago
      Sounds like poe's law? "wow these radical activists have some really extreme positions! could it be that these are people that sincerely hold extreme positions? nah they must be the 'controlled opposition' hired by the elites to bring 'back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed'!"
      - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
        Well, how would you ever know? When there's profit to be made you shouldn't exclude the possibility.
      - speed_spread 5y ago
        Nothing so obvious. Yes, these people aren't hired or paid in any way, they are authentic in their positions. And they also get media attention because extremes bring clicks, rational political discourse is otherwise "boring". Power dynamics already regulates away most credible opposition so incumbents only have to nudge things here and there.
- codingdave 5y ago
  Yes, but posting "They're totally fine" is hardly distinguishing those problems. If you are going to use your credentials to explain why you do not have a problem with GMOs, but then put in a blanket "Everything is fine" vibe... that doesn't do justice to the problems.
  - epgui 5y ago
    A biochemist isn't exactly the best positioned to talk about political or legal issues. Health risks, however, are what we know about.

For me the idea that a company can claim intellectual property rights to a genome sounds pretty awful. To be fair, I don't know if that's a real threat or not, but I could totally see it happening.

epgui 5y ago

Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!

karmakurtisaani 5y ago
That gives me a pretty cynical idea: the companies pushing GMOs should start funding and supporting groups who are vocal about the claimed adverse health effects of GMOs. That opposition is easy to argue against in public debate, and the resulting noise conveniently drowns out the real problems. Controlled opposition I think it's called. Not surprisingly, I've learned about this concept from the Russian government.
- speed_spread 5y ago
  I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Sounds like poe's law? "wow these radical activists have some really extreme positions! could it be that these are people that sincerely hold extreme positions? nah they must be the 'controlled opposition' hired by the elites to bring 'back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed'!"
    - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
      Well, how would you ever know? When there's profit to be made you shouldn't exclude the possibility.
    - speed_spread 5y ago
      Nothing so obvious. Yes, these people aren't hired or paid in any way, they are authentic in their positions. And they also get media attention because extremes bring clicks, rational political discourse is otherwise "boring". Power dynamics already regulates away most credible opposition so incumbents only have to nudge things here and there.
codingdave 5y ago
Yes, but posting "They're totally fine" is hardly distinguishing those problems. If you are going to use your credentials to explain why you do not have a problem with GMOs, but then put in a blanket "Everything is fine" vibe... that doesn't do justice to the problems.
- epgui 5y ago
  A biochemist isn't exactly the best positioned to talk about political or legal issues. Health risks, however, are what we know about.