I could've sworn I read they have a patent on human DNA I could be wrong ill search when I get home
Patents on human DNA need Congress’s input
By Editorial Board,April 14, 2013
A PATENT on DNA? Really? As strange as it sounds, the question of whether companies can patent DNA extracted from human cells is a live debate — one that will reach the Supreme Court on Monday.
The case involves the Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics, which identified two sections of genetic code that, when abnormal, indicate higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer. In order to scrutinize these genes, scientists must know where to look for them, find them and then remove them from the long strand of DNA in human cells, “isolating” them for lab testing. The company obtained patents on the isolated versions of the two genes it identified. That means if you want to see if you carry a mutated version of one or both of them, you have to ask Myriad to do the testing for you.
Myriad claims that the process of defining these genes — where they stop and start — took time, effort and ingenuity. The company’s geneticists can now isolate genetic material from patients and compare it to the template Myriad developed. In being the first to isolate these genes, the argument goes, the company in effect created a new chemical with novel therapeutic uses. Therefore, the company concludes, it rightly holds patent rights over that chemical — any version of these genes, once isolated.
A New York academic researcher, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, challenged the notion that Myriad invented anything. DNA, the challengers claim, is a substance found in nature. Merely isolating bits of that DNA does not change their essential attributes. All Myriad is doing is examining — however rigorously — what nature created. Worse, the critics claim, Myriad’s patents are so broad that they potentially give the company rights over all sorts of human genetic code after it has been isolated. All that, they say, puts unreasonable restrictions on therapy and research.
The legal precedent stresses that products of nature aren’t patentable, so the justices may well rule against Myriad. But either way, their ruling shouldn’t be the end of it. Balancing the benefits of free-flowing research against the value of mobilizing private money to detangle genetic code is a hard policy call that Congress should make. Myriad mounts a good case that refusing to offer gene patents would endanger billions invested in U.S. genetics research, plowed into the field on the assumption that companies could obtain patents. The company has reason to say that its work, though profit-motivated, has brought major progress to women’s health. That’s why the rest of the industrialized world allows gene patents, too.
Lawmakers should be able to design a system that encourages private investment but also limits the extent to which genetic-research patents can freeze free inquiry, offering patents or some other incentives but snipping their potentially overly broad reach, about which Myriad’s foes are rightly worried.
they are truly the anti-christ. they reengineer seeds (that would naturally) so they don't regenerate. what type of sick twisted shyt is that!!???!!!
you have to be all kinds of evil to even think of such a thing. but yet they are considered a legal person. well, if that is the case, this person should be admitted for a psych eval asap and either committed to a mental institution or charged with crimes against humanity and locked the eff up for life...
OK this isn't direct at the OP but this just isn't true.
First Section 733 of the act makes no mention of a "Farmers Assurance Provision" section 733 actually bans any company who has an outstanding tax liability to the Federal Government from receiving a loan or contract from the Department of Agriculture. It is actually Section 735 which addresses the halting of planting and sales of crops under investigation. Section 735 simply grants farmers a TEMPORARY permit to continue growing crops under review by the Secretary of Agriculture while the crops are being investigated, whereas before you had to cease all activity during an investigation. So what if they are planted? If they are found to be unsafe they wil be dealt with accordingly.
allowing for a temporary permit to continue to grow actually does appear to strip the courts from the abilty to halt planting of genetically engineered crops during the legal process.
anyway, personally, i would prefer they halt all together while under investigation.
given this companies history, it seems to me the question really is...so what if the courts can issue a halt planting/sale until investigation complete order? when your genetically altered craptastic seeds are found to be safe, you can continue on.
i mean, this is the case with many other situations (halt while under review) that affect the public. why should it be any different for this? what do they plan to do with the crappy crops should things not go in their favor?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum