Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm just going to leave this here quietly, then run like hell.... [View all]NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)77. Touche! Correct on all counts.
RW talking point goes a bit far, but it certainly is a culture myth that nobody would ever be productive without some profit incentive.
Human history is filled with examples.
Corporations are filing patents on natural genomes that they didn't even invent, FFS!
Patent Mother Nature
TAG of the Week: "Patent Mother Nature"
Advancement in science and medicine is often driven by the excitement of new knowledge, the ability to search for a cure, and the possibility of improving population health ... in some cases, the opportunity for fame, fortune, and "commercial interest" ... Patenting medical devices, intellectual property, and genes have been vehicles to promote innovation, competition, and better goods for all. On the other hand, could one really patent something Mother Nature has programmed in everyone of us?
Our discussion ties back to a previous post asking about who owns genetic property. In this case, does a company have a rights to a gene? Make a case for how you would support the case for Myriad to keep their gene patents? Would allowing Myriad to keep the gene patents encourage research or stifle competition? Or is the central issue about who gets a bigger cut of the money and profits?
Current Event: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02gene.html
Posted by Kee Chan, PhD at 9:13 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: business, genetic testing, medicine, Patents
TAG of the Week: "Patent Mother Nature"
Advancement in science and medicine is often driven by the excitement of new knowledge, the ability to search for a cure, and the possibility of improving population health ... in some cases, the opportunity for fame, fortune, and "commercial interest" ... Patenting medical devices, intellectual property, and genes have been vehicles to promote innovation, competition, and better goods for all. On the other hand, could one really patent something Mother Nature has programmed in everyone of us?
Our discussion ties back to a previous post asking about who owns genetic property. In this case, does a company have a rights to a gene? Make a case for how you would support the case for Myriad to keep their gene patents? Would allowing Myriad to keep the gene patents encourage research or stifle competition? Or is the central issue about who gets a bigger cut of the money and profits?
Current Event: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02gene.html
Posted by Kee Chan, PhD at 9:13 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: business, genetic testing, medicine, Patents
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Do you fully support the way Monsanto is genetically modifying food organisms?
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#10
What's actually happening on the ground so to speak with Monsanto modified organisms.
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#20
Lives saved by GMO's? Are you kidding? Anything & everything that Monsato claims
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#32
Of course there are, but Monsanto goes after ANYONE they want, regardless
riderinthestorm
Jan 2013
#46
Do you only eat food that you have 100% knowledge of the chemical processes ...
Buzz Clik
Jan 2013
#21
Well, I know people have been eating unmodified versions of the foods I eat for centuries
RomneyLies
Jan 2013
#23
I certainly haven't said that, I think there is immense potential for good in GM
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#45
People with food allergies have good reason to be leery of GMO's, till the producers can identify
pnwmom
Jan 2013
#48
"I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist."
Buzz Clik
Jan 2013
#4
You want the most BASIC reason to oppose GMO's? Our food supply needs diversity for survival. GMO's
KittyWampus
Jan 2013
#24
If GMO were actually being used to better mankind rather than wring every last drop of profit
Fumesucker
Jan 2013
#6
Well, it might be because large numbers of baseless objections are a pain in the ass.
sibelian
Jan 2013
#96
End all organism and seed patents and close all present and future legislation.
NYC_SKP
Jan 2013
#11
So other than profit, what's the incentive for developing a better hybrid tea rose?
Major Nikon
Jan 2013
#64
People don't require GMOs to have a healthy nutritious diet of their own choosing.
HiPointDem
Jan 2013
#47
Climate change will soon begin to affect food production to a degree we can't ignore.
randome
Jan 2013
#75
The Effect of Glyphosate on Potential Pathogens and Beneficial Members of Poultry Microbiota In Vitr
dkf
Jan 2013
#78
The problem with GMOs is, and has always been, that we don't know what what will happen
Taverner
Jan 2013
#87
apologies to the scientists in this thread- MONSANTO IS EVIL AND GMO's are an INSIDIOUS DANGER!!!
farminator3000
Jan 2013
#97