4 ms·
Why would that be a gray area? It’s a discovery, it’s a specific antibody. What’s the difference if it was discovered in a human, an animal model or in a screen
by gklitz 2y ago
Why would that be a gray area? It’s a discovery, it’s a specific antibody. What’s the difference if it was discovered in a human, an animal model or in a screening of randomly generated sequences?
- fragmede 2y agobecause a human made it. If it happened outside of their body, like that human being painted a picture, someone else coming along and taking it would be theft in some dimension, so why is taking something from inside their body any different? Just because we have more science these days doesn't change the fact that it came from a person. If we didn't understand the science but that blood from this person cured the disease we'd be paying this person for every pint of blood they produced.
- gklitz 2y agoThey didn’t “take something from inside their body” the patient consented to be included in a study. These things are not done without informed consent, let alone against the patients will.
- bravetraveler 2y agoProvenance and attribution are concepts. How novel something can be presented is kind of the whole idea Behold, my newest discovery: lumpy milk. How was it made? Time, my patent, and the plainant will tell
- dTal 2y ago"Mere discovery" in general is a gray area, which many jurisdictions do not recognize as eligible for patent. Patents are supposed to incentivize creation. It's much less helpful to society to grant a monopoly on a naturally occurring thing, that already exists, to the first person to happen to stumble across it. Supposing it wasn't a protein from a single human, but a protein contained in all blueberries. Blueberries are now known to be a cure for Covid-19 if you eat tons of them. Should the discoverer of this world-changing fact be suddenly granted a monopoly on blueberries?