5 ms·

If human beings composed said genes, ie. through a splice or more involved process, then said composition is indeed a product of man because it was brought abou

by astine 14y ago

If human beings composed said genes, ie. through a splice or more involved process, then said composition is indeed a product of man because it was brought about through deliberate human effort and did not exist before. There are many ethical concerns with patented genes, but whether or not artificial gene composition are products of man seems pretty clear to me. By way of analogy, rock formations occur naturally, but when a person deliberately carves or arranges the rocks, as in a primitive building or in a statue, it becomes artificial, even if it resembles something that could appear in nature. The same logic would apply here. The problem, as I see it, is that we might end up patenting real people's genes and that could lead to real trouble.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago
I think one of the weaknesses is in replication - the process of replicating genes is most certainly not a product of man. So if a rock carved into a primitive statue is mine, and if rock could naturally replicate, split into two, would the second rock which I had no hand in creating, still be my product? And the third?
- astine 14y ago
  I think it would. If the original statue was your product and the new statues would only have come into existence because of your original, then the criteria for copyright would still apply. The reason is that copyright is meant to give creators some legal control over stuff which is liable to be copied without his control. Of course, there are a lot more difficulties in copyrighted genes than in other copyrighted works, but I think that is due to the failure of the copyright system to take into account the unique nature of genes rather than the ineligibility of genes for copyright as the law stands. I suspect that what will happen is that the genes will remain copyrightable and the law will be modified to account for the unique dangers copyrighted genes present, likely through limiting the power copyright holders possess over them.
doktrin 14y ago
After doing some additional reading, I can now see what the basis for the pro-patent argument is. However, I disagree with it as I'm struggling with the concept of "because we touched it, it's now different". Below is a description, from a patent law blog, of the change that occurs during the gene isolation : "To be clear, the change in the molecule that the court is discussing is that the isolated DNA molecule is cleaved from the larger chromosomal DNA molecule by enzymatically cutting it off at each end and slightly altering the terminal amino acid groups." [1] From the same link, one judge ruled this as akin to plucking a leaf from a tree. While the analogy is simplistic - how is it [conceptually] different? Judge rulings below : Judge Bryson [minority] : [E]xtracting a gene is akin to snapping a leaf from a tree. Like a gene, a leaf has a natural starting and stopping point. It buds during spring from the same place that it breaks off and falls during autumn. Yet prematurely plucking the leaf would not turn it into a human-made invention. That would remain true if there were minor differences between the plucked leaf and the fallen autumn leaf, unless those differences imparted "markedly different characteristics" to the plucked leaf. Louie & Moore [majority ruling] : It is also important to dispute the dissent's analogy to snapping a leaf from a tree. With respect, no one could contemplate that snapping a leaf from a tree would be worthy of a patent, whereas isolating genes to provide useful diagnostic tools and medicines is surely what the patent laws are intended to encourage and protect. Snapping a leaf from a tree is a physical separation, easily done by anyone. Creating a new chemical entity is the work of human transformation, requiring skill, knowledge, and effort. [1]http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/gene-patent-debate-continues-federal-circuit-finds-isolated-human-genes-patentable.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/gene-patent-debate-c...
- mbreese 14y ago
  the isolated DNA molecule is cleaved from the larger chromosomal DNA molecule by enzymatically cutting it off at each end and slightly altering the terminal amino acid groups If that's what they patented, then I think we're all in the clear... DNA doesn't have amino acids. Whew! And here I thought a court might have made a terrible mistake in a ruling about something that they didn't fully understand.
  - 14y ago
rorrr 14y ago
Except that the company that tries to patent BRCA gene has nothing to do with its "carving". Your analogy doesn't work.

by astine 14y ago

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

I think one of the weaknesses is in replication - the process of replicating genes is most certainly not a product of man. So if a rock carved into a primitive statue is mine, and if rock could naturally replicate, split into two, would the second rock which I had no hand in creating, still be my product? And the third?

astine 14y ago
I think it would. If the original statue was your product and the new statues would only have come into existence because of your original, then the criteria for copyright would still apply. The reason is that copyright is meant to give creators some legal control over stuff which is liable to be copied without his control. Of course, there are a lot more difficulties in copyrighted genes than in other copyrighted works, but I think that is due to the failure of the copyright system to take into account the unique nature of genes rather than the ineligibility of genes for copyright as the law stands. I suspect that what will happen is that the genes will remain copyrightable and the law will be modified to account for the unique dangers copyrighted genes present, likely through limiting the power copyright holders possess over them.

doktrin 14y ago

After doing some additional reading, I can now see what the basis for the pro-patent argument is. However, I disagree with it as I'm struggling with the concept of "because we touched it, it's now different". Below is a description, from a patent law blog, of the change that occurs during the gene isolation : "To be clear, the change in the molecule that the court is discussing is that the isolated DNA molecule is cleaved from the larger chromosomal DNA molecule by enzymatically cutting it off at each end and slightly altering the terminal amino acid groups." [1] From the same link, one judge ruled this as akin to plucking a leaf from a tree. While the analogy is simplistic - how is it [conceptually] different? Judge rulings below : Judge Bryson [minority] : [E]xtracting a gene is akin to snapping a leaf from a tree. Like a gene, a leaf has a natural starting and stopping point. It buds during spring from the same place that it breaks off and falls during autumn. Yet prematurely plucking the leaf would not turn it into a human-made invention. That would remain true if there were minor differences between the plucked leaf and the fallen autumn leaf, unless those differences imparted "markedly different characteristics" to the plucked leaf. Louie & Moore [majority ruling] : It is also important to dispute the dissent's analogy to snapping a leaf from a tree. With respect, no one could contemplate that snapping a leaf from a tree would be worthy of a patent, whereas isolating genes to provide useful diagnostic tools and medicines is surely what the patent laws are intended to encourage and protect. Snapping a leaf from a tree is a physical separation, easily done by anyone. Creating a new chemical entity is the work of human transformation, requiring skill, knowledge, and effort. [1]http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/gene-patent-debate-continues-federal-circuit-finds-isolated-human-genes-patentable.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/gene-patent-debate-c...

mbreese 14y ago
the isolated DNA molecule is cleaved from the larger chromosomal DNA molecule by enzymatically cutting it off at each end and slightly altering the terminal amino acid groups If that's what they patented, then I think we're all in the clear... DNA doesn't have amino acids. Whew! And here I thought a court might have made a terrible mistake in a ruling about something that they didn't fully understand.
- 14y ago

rorrr 14y ago

Except that the company that tries to patent BRCA gene has nothing to do with its "carving". Your analogy doesn't work.