Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic » The human gene patent...

Forum: Rants
Topic: The human gene patent...
started by: Client

Posted by Client on Jun. 23 2000,16:19

Of course, I am not forcing anyone to post

But have you all heard of the recent human gene patents the government is giving to researchers that find and identify a singe human gene? Large corporations are struggling to capture as many genes as they can, so that later when researches find that some can cure diseases or help in some way, they are paid (prices they set, of course) for the use of "their genes" in research as if they were renting. It scares me, and personally I think these corporations should be bombed...I know it is revealing to speed up the Human Genome project by a great amount, but what is worth creating companies with ownership of human genes? Is that not ultimate power (ultimate corruption? I'm an advocate of limiting genetic engineering and cloning, mainly for moral reasons, but not the usual ones: I don’t think that expanding the capabilities of a human being is going to make anyone happier! So what if a human's more productive and can work twenty hours a day on peanuts without getting a back-ache? Some applications, like creating alternate food sources, seem reasonable to me, but making ourselves god like first of all wont ever work, and second, wont make us enjoy life more. Medical benefits and food growth are what i support. You? Any other comments on genetic engineering or cloning?

------------------
"Around 2300, every square mile of the earth's landmass will have the population density of Manhattan at noon."
-Isaac Asimov

Ever see a cage of rats starve to death?

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 23 2000,18:47

first, client, note they are patents, which means they can only last 17 years, and after that everyone has a right to it.

also, im sort of divided on the gene controlling thing. on the one hand, yes it would be nice to be able to make sure children would have no diseases (i wish that was around when i was born, i have a genetic disease) but theyre sort of taking away natures role. i mean yes taking away diseases is good, but controlling height and eye color and all that? i think most of that should be left up to nature. plus theyd definetly have to find a way to prevent gattaca from happening

also, did anyone else notice that gattaca is made up from the letters of DNA? what is it?...thymine...jesus biology was a long time ago...

Posted by The_Hiro on Jun. 23 2000,19:15

If I remember correctly the base pairs are guanine, adenine, thymine, cytosine. That was some years ago, though. Stuff's pretty hazy.

Posted by Hellraiser on Jun. 23 2000,22:03

The world couldn't handle having everyone perfect. Then what would we do?

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Posted by Firefox on Jun. 24 2000,00:39

I wouldn't say make everyone perfect. I don't think that selecting genes to insure a certain height/build/eye colour/etc. would be a good idea. But what about the MAJOR issues... like removing genes that cause MAJOR ailments?? Wouldn't it make sense to remove the gene that causes cancer (if there were one) from every baby, so instead of spending billions on a cure, we cure it by elminating it at it's root?

I dunno. The way I see it, I just think that curing major health problems with preventative gene altering kinda makes sense.

(Of course, this is all assuming the technology was to a point where the side effects were minimal or non-existant. I would never suggest doing such a thing if the end results were not known.)

-FFox

Posted by Sithiee on Jun. 24 2000,01:44

i disagree, i think diseases that arent "major" shoudl also be eliminated. i have psoriasis. for those of you who dont know what that is, its a skin disease. i guess it looks like poison ivy, cause people are always asking me if i have poison ivy. it isnt really harmful to me, its really just a buildup of dead skin. its not lethal. so i guess its not a major disease...but you might be forgetting the social impact of these diseases. ive had people who have seen me say things like "what the hell is that shit?" and "what the fuck is wrong with you??", and believe me, after enough of this it takes a psychological toll. i was always a loner up until high school when i guess people matured enough to look beyond it. i only wonder how i would have turned out without this disease. so before you go limiting it to "major" diseases, think about what your doing.

Posted by Firefox on Jun. 24 2000,05:04

This is another topic that is pretty touchy and controversial these days. The problem is that yeah, we don't want the "big evil corportations" (as most people see them these days) to go and own all the patents to badly needed disease cures. We want these types of things to be public domain, so anyone who really needs them can have them, even if they don't have a lot of money. The problem is that, as many people know, the public sector isn't always very efficient.

To this end, giving patents to companies who then pour their own money into developing cures to diseases seems to make sense, since the public sector doesn't actually have to pay anything, plus research will likely move along faster, because when a company's well-being is at stake, there is no reason to delay in research.

And to move away a little towards the topic of choosing genes... I hear people all the time saying "The thought that people could start choosing what types of ailments their children could or could not have is scary..." To a certain extent, I agree with this. But just the other day, on the radio, I heard a lady (who was a spokesman for some downs-syndrome type disease foundation) say that the thought that people could insure their child not be afflicted with this disease scary. Why?

I mean, there is nothing wrong with people being different, but let's be honest... if you could, before concieving your child, insure that they would never suffer from Asthma, Leukemia, or a variety of degenerative diseases, would you? I think that every parent wants their child to be as happy and healthy as possible. Is it truly that wrong for someone to take action ahead of time to try to prevent their future child from suffering from a variety of problems??

I know that there is a lot wrong with this perspective. But still, how can you say that if you were in that situation, you wouldn't want to choose to make your child as healthy as possible?

Oh yeah, while I'm on the topic, ever seen the movie "Gattica"?? That is my favorite movie relating to the idea of self-determined genetics. If you have never seen it, I highly recommend it.

-FFox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited June 23, 2000).]

Posted by The_Hiro on Jun. 24 2000,05:13

Yeah. I loved Gattaca. Own a copy actually.

Posted by Client on Jun. 24 2000,19:15

I would have to agree with you Sithiee; I was legally blind in my right eye when i was five...something that a few operations and another five years of pirate-like eye patch wearing to even get 20/40 vision, which is almost looking through a screen door all the time. Luckily i have my other eye, but i have distance judging problems and must always wear my contact (singular

) or glasses when driving...I would have been exempt from a lot of ridicule and discomfort had i been "fixed" before my birth...but hell...when i really think about it...it is a part of my personality, and i am very different (stronger even) because i suffered through being blind when i winked. I don't know...I actually support the patenting partially, but only because of the time limit; it will be done before that though, and a lot of revenue is being made off those subtle improvements. If i was a father and had such options, it would be a battle...to me there is something unnerving about the unnatural modification of living being...people are built like Windows though: They need a lot of patching.