Without the huge amount of money invested by government in education and
R&D, the genome project or other scientific discoveries would not have been
possible. Calera, a private company wants to patent, human genes. It is
like patenting the math equations, physics equations, chemistry table, etc.
Can a company legally patent something that is natural occuring in the
natural environment. The human genome project was never about making
money, it was about human discovery, a great endeavor, and now a private
company wants to profit from the public’s investment education over the 100
years by patenting knowledge that is public domain. Greed was never the
motivation of this expensive endeavor or quest for knowledge.
23
Dec
Human Genes Patents should be outlawed.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)
3 Responses to “Human Genes Patents should be outlawed.”
Place your comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In <J0pY3.73488$Rx2.863…@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, on 11/17/99
at 03:10 AM, "Bill" <99…@dfdf.com> said:
I agree.
>Without the huge amount of money invested by government in
>education and R&D, the genome project or other scientific
>discoveries would not have been possible. Calera, a private
>company wants to patent, human genes. It is like patenting the
>math equations, physics equations, chemistry table, etc. Can a
>company legally patent something that is natural occuring in the
>natural environment. The human genome project was never about
>making money, it was about human discovery, a great endeavor, and
>now a private company wants to profit from the public’s
>investment education over the 100 years by patenting knowledge
>that is public domain. Greed was never the motivation of this
>expensive endeavor or quest for knowledge.
–
——————————————————–
Barry Adams
Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
—
———————————————————–
bjbad…@home.com wrote:
> I agree.
So do I, it would be like me trying to patent an Oak Tree. The idea
that you can patent anything just because you’ve put time and effort
(and money) into research is ridiculous.
R&D means research and *DEVELOPMENT*, I have no problem with someone
researching the human genome and then developing products/procedures as
a result of the research and then patenting that *DEVELOPED* product/
procedure but the concept that someone can patent the basic, underlying
naturae is silly…what next, will we be expected to pay royalities on
our babies because they would contain some of this patented genetic
code ?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > In <J0pY3.73488$Rx2.863…@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, on 11/17/99
> > at 03:10 AM, "Bill" <99…@dfdf.com> said:
> >Without the huge amount of money invested by government in
> >education and R&D, the genome project or other scientific
> >discoveries would not have been possible. Calera, a private
> >company wants to patent, human genes. It is like patenting the
> >math equations, physics equations, chemistry table, etc. Can a
> >company legally patent something that is natural occuring in the
> >natural environment. The human genome project was never about
> >making money, it was about human discovery, a great endeavor, and
> >now a private company wants to profit from the public’s
> >investment education over the 100 years by patenting knowledge
> >that is public domain. Greed was never the motivation of this
> >expensive endeavor or quest for knowledge.
> —
> ——————————————————–
> Barry Adams
> Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
> —
> ———————————————————–
In <383384D6.1…@istar.ca>, on 11/17/99
at 08:47 PM, Ken & Laura Chaddock <chadd…@istar.ca> said:
>bjbad…@home.com wrote:
>> I agree.
> So do I, it would be like me trying to patent an Oak Tree. The
>idea that you can patent anything just because you’ve put time
>and effort (and money) into research is ridiculous.
> R&D means research and *DEVELOPMENT*, I have no problem with
>someone researching the human genome and then developing
>products/procedures as a result of the research and then
>patenting that *DEVELOPED* product/ procedure but the concept
>that someone can patent the basic, underlying naturae is
>silly…what next, will we be expected to pay royalities on our
>babies because they would contain some of this patented genetic
>code ?
Probably. Very well argued Ken!
–
——————————————————–
Barry Adams
Vancouver Island,B.C.,Canada
—
———————————————————–