When we talk about "gene patents" there are two broad categories. 1. Patents granted for naturally occurring genes. For example, patents can be obtained for gene sequence of virus, bacteria, certain gene mutation in human or other genes. Once patented, anyone who does research or uses the gene sequence containing organism in their product have to pay royalties to the patent holder. 2. Patents granted for artificially modified genes. Here it can be genetically modified cattle, crops or any other organism or even human genome. It is usually done to tone down unfavorable traits and to enhance or introduce favorable traits. Again, once patented, the company is granted an intellectual monopoly over the gene. Let us see how both cases are absurd and stupid. Only ruthless cut-throat capitalists can favor such unethical and immoral system at the cost of millions of lives.
First let me clear my opinion on genetic engineering. We need genetic engineering to survive as a species in this world. Let me list out few of the critically important advancements in this field.
1. Human population is growing. To meet the growing demand for food, we cannot go on increasing land usage for agriculture. Land usage for agriculture is the major cause of deforestation and species extinction. Agriculture destroys entire ecosystems for growing food or other crops for us humans alone! So it is high time that we reduce and reverse land utilization. How can we do that? Genetically modified crops with better yield can help us. We can feed the growing population with lesser land if we rightly hit the genes that result in high yields.
2. Water is also a very scarce resource today. With GMO, we can have drought resistant crops which consume less water and hence better usage of water.
3. Reduction of pesticide is also a benefit of GMO crops. Crops designed to resist insects or infections need lesser pesticides and chemicals to grow and hence more eco-friendly.
4. Drug resistance of existing bacterial diseases and new infectious disease like Ebola, Zika are causing lot of deaths and disabilities around the world. Genetic Engineering can provide us with new anti-biotics and vaccines that can cure or prevent these diseases.
5. Diseases like diabetes, obesity, cancer, birth defects and lot more can be caused due to gene mutations. By identifying the specific genetic causes and working on a cure can save lot of lives.
These are few uses I can think now. But the list can be never ending. Organic farming or herbal remedies are no match to these advancements of science and hence we should support scientific advancements instead of pseudoscience mumbo-jumbos. Now let us see how patent system spoils this field with its unrealistic powers!
1. Patents on Naturally Occurring Genes
Did Isaac Newton invent gravity? Did Galileo invent heliocentricity? Did Robert Hooke invent cells? What about Vasco da Gama? Did he invent India? No! They all discovered. Discovery is finding or observing something already in existence. And nobody can claim a patent for a discovery. Genes of naturally occurring virus, bacteria and mutation that cause cancer or other diseases are not invented in any sense. They are just observed, may be for the first time. But how can people claim patents for things like SARS virus genome or mutation that causes breast cancer? Capitalist bots just repeat the same old blabber that "the company has invested money and effort to "find" the gene and anyone else who "uses" should pay them. Else without monetary benefits the system won't work!". Even Newton spent lot of time, effort and money to discover theory of gravity. Can he own a patent? Without any monetary benefit protected by patent system how people like Einstein worked further on Newtonian equations to arrive at more complicated theories like relativity? Things like getting soil from moon or catching a species from deep ocean require lot of money too. If none of them can be patented how can a naturally existing gene can be patented? We can't patent the pattern of seeds in a fruit. We can't patent the sequence of event in embryo development. Similarly no one should be allowed to patent a sequence of genetic material just because they have observed it first or filed for a patent first!
These type of patents cripple research and invention of drugs or solutions to common problems like eradication of mosquito, conservation of endangered species etc. A rich person can setup an R&D lab and mine for genomes of disease causing microbes and mutation, file for patents and act like a patent troll suing everyone who attempts to research on any of them. It is already happening today. We should not let this stay this way until a major epidemic like Ebola becomes pandemic and a corporate holding patent for the gene keeps the entire humanity for ransom!
2. Patents on Modified Genes
Genes are just sequence of organic molecules arranged in a particular pattern, just like an essay is a sequence of letter and a piece of music is a sequence of notes. So even if anyone "creates" a gene, it should not be allowed to be patented but it may be copyrighted (still it is wrong, I will come to that shortly). So if somebody claims that they have "created" a gene "from the scratch" then they can ONLY claim copyright not patent.
Now let us see why copyrighting is also not valid in case of GMOs. All the GMOs in the market today are not original works but derivative works. So, the existing genes are just like songs or literature in public domain. Anyone can create a derivative work over it. But cannot restrict others from doing a similar derivative work. When Monsanto say that they created a particular type of corn, they have worked on existing corn. The corn which Native Americans already genetically modified through selective breeding. Without Native Americans shaping the genes of corn with the chisel of selective breeding, corn, in its current form, will not be here! The wild corn would be of no use for us. Not only corn. All food crops and cattle are product of genetic engineering through selective breeding and co-evolution. Lot of money, time and effort of people for generations are involved in genetically modifying these organisms. Monsanto or any other company cannot just take these organisms and edit a gene here and there to claim that it is their own "intellectual property". What percentage of original genes have been modified, how original is the modification? Is the work is mere compilation of two existing genes? Does it involve only a trivial change like removing a bad mutation? These are some of the questions need to be answered. Also if someone can build on the collective work of people for centuries, then why not others can do the same?
These type of patents prevent high yielding, drought resistant, pest resistant and more nutritious variants of crops from reaching everyone. Even if someone tries to arrive at organisms with similar traits they are threatened with lawsuits. This also applies to researches on new anti-biotics, gene therapies and vaccines.
Not Only Genes!
As we have seen, there is no logic in granting patent to genes. The US government refused to offer patents on gene for a long time. But due to corporate lobbies and coercion, US government surrendered to their demands. But later, US Supreme Court declared that naturally occurring genes cannot be patented. But Europe allows patenting naturally occurring genes, provided they are isolated! All capitalist-run governments accept patent on modified genes (irrespective of the size, nature, triviality of the modification). Now the same is forced on smaller nations through treaties and agreements and in some cases, even through war!
Patents are awarded even for chemicals and molecules. Patent as a system itself favors monopoly. Monopoly always result in accumulation of wealth in the hands of few at the cost of hardship of many. It is high time that governments stop helping these cut-throat corporates and stop appeasing them with unethical patent laws. Instead governments can fund universities, state sponsored labs and organizations to take up the research. Just by spending less on war and weapons, each nation can contribute towards a collective research fund and required technologies can be prioritized based on impact and outcome. By this we can also have some sanity in prioritizing researches. For example, in a capitalistic free market economy, a gel used in cosmetic surgery will be "voted up with wallet" than a search for new anti-biotic. So some level of state planning and state regulation is needed. We cannot allow blind and uncontrolled competition to decide things for us. Let us stand against patent and pseudoscience as both result in crippling of intellectual progress!
First let me clear my opinion on genetic engineering. We need genetic engineering to survive as a species in this world. Let me list out few of the critically important advancements in this field.
1. Human population is growing. To meet the growing demand for food, we cannot go on increasing land usage for agriculture. Land usage for agriculture is the major cause of deforestation and species extinction. Agriculture destroys entire ecosystems for growing food or other crops for us humans alone! So it is high time that we reduce and reverse land utilization. How can we do that? Genetically modified crops with better yield can help us. We can feed the growing population with lesser land if we rightly hit the genes that result in high yields.
2. Water is also a very scarce resource today. With GMO, we can have drought resistant crops which consume less water and hence better usage of water.
3. Reduction of pesticide is also a benefit of GMO crops. Crops designed to resist insects or infections need lesser pesticides and chemicals to grow and hence more eco-friendly.
4. Drug resistance of existing bacterial diseases and new infectious disease like Ebola, Zika are causing lot of deaths and disabilities around the world. Genetic Engineering can provide us with new anti-biotics and vaccines that can cure or prevent these diseases.
5. Diseases like diabetes, obesity, cancer, birth defects and lot more can be caused due to gene mutations. By identifying the specific genetic causes and working on a cure can save lot of lives.
These are few uses I can think now. But the list can be never ending. Organic farming or herbal remedies are no match to these advancements of science and hence we should support scientific advancements instead of pseudoscience mumbo-jumbos. Now let us see how patent system spoils this field with its unrealistic powers!
1. Patents on Naturally Occurring Genes
Did Isaac Newton invent gravity? Did Galileo invent heliocentricity? Did Robert Hooke invent cells? What about Vasco da Gama? Did he invent India? No! They all discovered. Discovery is finding or observing something already in existence. And nobody can claim a patent for a discovery. Genes of naturally occurring virus, bacteria and mutation that cause cancer or other diseases are not invented in any sense. They are just observed, may be for the first time. But how can people claim patents for things like SARS virus genome or mutation that causes breast cancer? Capitalist bots just repeat the same old blabber that "the company has invested money and effort to "find" the gene and anyone else who "uses" should pay them. Else without monetary benefits the system won't work!". Even Newton spent lot of time, effort and money to discover theory of gravity. Can he own a patent? Without any monetary benefit protected by patent system how people like Einstein worked further on Newtonian equations to arrive at more complicated theories like relativity? Things like getting soil from moon or catching a species from deep ocean require lot of money too. If none of them can be patented how can a naturally existing gene can be patented? We can't patent the pattern of seeds in a fruit. We can't patent the sequence of event in embryo development. Similarly no one should be allowed to patent a sequence of genetic material just because they have observed it first or filed for a patent first!
These type of patents cripple research and invention of drugs or solutions to common problems like eradication of mosquito, conservation of endangered species etc. A rich person can setup an R&D lab and mine for genomes of disease causing microbes and mutation, file for patents and act like a patent troll suing everyone who attempts to research on any of them. It is already happening today. We should not let this stay this way until a major epidemic like Ebola becomes pandemic and a corporate holding patent for the gene keeps the entire humanity for ransom!
2. Patents on Modified Genes
Genes are just sequence of organic molecules arranged in a particular pattern, just like an essay is a sequence of letter and a piece of music is a sequence of notes. So even if anyone "creates" a gene, it should not be allowed to be patented but it may be copyrighted (still it is wrong, I will come to that shortly). So if somebody claims that they have "created" a gene "from the scratch" then they can ONLY claim copyright not patent.
Now let us see why copyrighting is also not valid in case of GMOs. All the GMOs in the market today are not original works but derivative works. So, the existing genes are just like songs or literature in public domain. Anyone can create a derivative work over it. But cannot restrict others from doing a similar derivative work. When Monsanto say that they created a particular type of corn, they have worked on existing corn. The corn which Native Americans already genetically modified through selective breeding. Without Native Americans shaping the genes of corn with the chisel of selective breeding, corn, in its current form, will not be here! The wild corn would be of no use for us. Not only corn. All food crops and cattle are product of genetic engineering through selective breeding and co-evolution. Lot of money, time and effort of people for generations are involved in genetically modifying these organisms. Monsanto or any other company cannot just take these organisms and edit a gene here and there to claim that it is their own "intellectual property". What percentage of original genes have been modified, how original is the modification? Is the work is mere compilation of two existing genes? Does it involve only a trivial change like removing a bad mutation? These are some of the questions need to be answered. Also if someone can build on the collective work of people for centuries, then why not others can do the same?
These type of patents prevent high yielding, drought resistant, pest resistant and more nutritious variants of crops from reaching everyone. Even if someone tries to arrive at organisms with similar traits they are threatened with lawsuits. This also applies to researches on new anti-biotics, gene therapies and vaccines.
Not Only Genes!
As we have seen, there is no logic in granting patent to genes. The US government refused to offer patents on gene for a long time. But due to corporate lobbies and coercion, US government surrendered to their demands. But later, US Supreme Court declared that naturally occurring genes cannot be patented. But Europe allows patenting naturally occurring genes, provided they are isolated! All capitalist-run governments accept patent on modified genes (irrespective of the size, nature, triviality of the modification). Now the same is forced on smaller nations through treaties and agreements and in some cases, even through war!
Patents are awarded even for chemicals and molecules. Patent as a system itself favors monopoly. Monopoly always result in accumulation of wealth in the hands of few at the cost of hardship of many. It is high time that governments stop helping these cut-throat corporates and stop appeasing them with unethical patent laws. Instead governments can fund universities, state sponsored labs and organizations to take up the research. Just by spending less on war and weapons, each nation can contribute towards a collective research fund and required technologies can be prioritized based on impact and outcome. By this we can also have some sanity in prioritizing researches. For example, in a capitalistic free market economy, a gel used in cosmetic surgery will be "voted up with wallet" than a search for new anti-biotic. So some level of state planning and state regulation is needed. We cannot allow blind and uncontrolled competition to decide things for us. Let us stand against patent and pseudoscience as both result in crippling of intellectual progress!
