4 ms·
Really? Say goodbye to the promise of synthetic biology then!
by daughart 13y ago
Really? Say goodbye to the promise of synthetic biology then!
- shmerl 13y agoYou can say goodbye to it if that will be patentable. Someone will patent all combinations - and goodbye.
- daughart 13y agoI suspect you are a troll, but I will respond anyway... Sequence space is very large. There are only a total of 8 million US patents. There are 16 million 12-base-pair nucleotide sequences. To patent the sequence space of a functional product and regulatory region would require more patents than there are molecules in the universe. Also to patent something you have to show use.
- shmerl 13y agoI was showing sarcasm. Patenting a molecule is a ridiculous idea, but you insist that it's about the process of making it. I'm pointing out that the result is not about the process, but about the molecule.
- daughart 13y agoI genuinely don't understand your point. If a group of people synthesize and test many synthetic DNA sequences and then patent the useful ones, that seems fine to me. You might even call them "synthetic biologists". They have invented new things, which are not found in nature, by the process of their own skills, knowledge, and labor, and which are useful to other people. It seems perfectly reasonable that those inventions should be protected by the patent system.
- shmerl 13y agoI find the concept of patenting new biological entities rather scary and dangerous. They should not be patentable. Patent system is easily abused for many things unrelated to encouraging innovation. Therefore there is nothing reasonable in allowing these patents just because it takes time and effort to come up with synthesis method.
- daughart 13y agoUnjustified fear is not a rational basis for policy. It's not the synthesis method that is at stake here, it is the engineered biological system itself (system referring to a gene, regulatory sequence, genetic pathway, or organism). The kind of innovation involved in this kind of engineering is precisely what the patent system is designed to protect, so that it can be monetized while also disseminated. Without patents these innovations will remain trade secrets and hold back the progress of synthetic biology. Without patents private companies may not be able to justify investment required for innovation. Without patents inability to monetize inventions reduces the overall economic impact (return on investment) for public financing of life sciences, which in turn removes a powerful incentive for government financing of research. For instance, a company finds a compound that fights cancer. The company invents a way to synthesize or purify this compound and sell it. The patent protects the inventor and allows them to recoup the investment. This is widely accepted. Now consider that company engineers an organism that can produce the compound in large bio-reactors. The modified organism - and in particular the engineered DNA sequences - are completely analogous to the chemical manufacturing process, and should be similarly protected. Moreover, consider that the second process may remove a need to use the organic carbon precursors necessary for chemical synthesis (fossil fuels), or eliminates a toxic by-product of chemical synthesis, or is much cheaper and therefore reduces the cost of the compound, benefiting the public. These are real world consequences of synthetic biology protected by the patent system. They don't seem so scary to me.
- shmerl 13y agoIn general I find the patentability of medicines a very abused practice. Pharma industry is one of the most corrupted, and especially when it comes to patents. So your example serves do disprove your point.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]