BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When entities patent genes they open doors to research that saves lives

Michael Goldman, a patent attorney with the firm Nixon, Hargrave, in Rochester, N.Y. The purpose of a patent is to allow an inventor time to develop a salable product. During the 20 years of patent protection, another party can use the invention to develop a product only with a licensing agreement. (However, basic researchers can use it freely.) This period of exclusivity fosters commercial development of the invention by discouraging competition. "The claims section, at the back of the patent application, defines what the patent rights are. The object of a patent is to prevent others from making, using, and selling what's covered," therefore patenting a gene inhibits and controls research on it. Research after patenting is restricted, entitled and limited to whichever entity discovered it and to entities which pay royalties to this entity. Either way when a gene is patented by a biotech , it is that biotech that profiteers immensely for simply discovering it without making any innovation whatsoever.
Transgenic animals are a medium through which human lives can be bettered

Too risky, and at what cost? It's not animals alone that are at stake but human beings as well. Genetically modified animals/animal-products created for the benefit of human beings can prove detrimental for human health. Take the insulin milk mentioned on the left, while it maybe be wonderful for diabetes' patients it can cause hypoglycemia , erratic blood glucose levels and therefore a number of related diseases in normal people. And this is assuming experiments such as these do "not" go wrong, which is very unlikely. [[http://www.safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Genetic-engineering-of-animals/]] "Increased animal suffering Genetically modified animals are prone to increased levels of suffering. Previous experiments show GM calves, for example, are more likely to be born with serious deformities. GM cows can develop gangrenous udders and mastitis and are highly susceptible to respiratory and septic conditions. AgResearch seeks to use recipient animals as surrogate mothers to carry GM embryos. Recipient animals are often aborted at around 60 days and the foetus cells harvested to produce new embryos. Harm to our environment AgResearch plans to have research or testing facilities around New Zealand, including in the Waikato, Canterbury and Southland regions. The risk of a breach in biosecurity or site contamination can never be eliminated and would jeopardise New Zealand's reputation for clean, safe, natural food. Animal waste from GM animals will be used as compost or sprayed onto fields without adequate monitoring of the environmental effects. Unethical conduct AgResearch will genetically engineer animals with human genes. They will deliberately create sick animals as ‘models' of human disease despite the Bioethics Council calling for an ethical review of such practices. Risk of disease New Zealand animals are currently free of many highly contagious diseases such as Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and Scrapie, making New Zealand an attractive testing ground for overseas biotech investors. Genetic modification of animals risks creating new diseases in animals or in people consuming milk and other products made from the animals"
Genetic modification is inevitable and can only be beneficial in good hands

"However, considerable hope has been pinned on a new method of creating pluripotent stem cells that are capable of producing all the cells of the embryo except for the extraembryonic tissues. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) are obtained after somatic cells are transduced (infected) with a vector expression a set of special transcription factors. Such iPS cells are practically indistinguishable from embryonic stem (ES) cells in morphology, gene expression and pluripotency. The researcher considered such cells “the most promising candidates for future somatic NT experiments,” and stressed “the importance of deriving these cells in livestock species.” It is not clear whether the new experiments mentioned by the Dominion Post [1] on creating transgenic animals were done with iPS cells. If so, the high rates of death and abnormalities have hardly diminished. It is time to end all attempts to create GM animals or to clone animals by nuclear transplant. It is unacceptable in terms of animal suffering and the serious hazards to health as [2]."[[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/death_rates_end_cloning.php]] In this case the tool itself is noxious, it doesn't matter who is using it or whether it's in good hands so to speak. If GM is inevitable so is animal testing, human testing and the adverse consequences of testing living things. There is no safe method to perform genetic tests and fatalities are common, the 'imagined' boon of genetic modification is not justification for it's continued usage.
Discovery vs invention

Suppose I discover a goldmine, can I mine it? can I sell it for monetary profit? Can I exploit it for monetary profit? Yes. Harold Edgar, professor of law at Columbia University "When you isolate something as it appears in its natural state you change it, even if the only change is the isolation. You have left behind the natural product and created something artificial. No isolated gene sequence occurs in nature," Once a gene is removed from a person, it is no longer part of that person, if blodd samples are taken from a person and genes are extracted from those blood samples, who is that person to object? The gene holds zero monetary value to the person it is taken from since that person has not patented the gene, and cannot sell or buy it to invent a profitable panacea. Thus, the only grounds on which someone reject the taking of his/her genes is to stall scientific progress, which is ignoble indeed.
Cruelty to animals 90% death rate cloning project

Cloning is only one form of genetic research and is as such banned in the most of the world since the discovery that stem cells can be taken from human beings. "Stem cells exist beyond the embryo, in both foetal and adult tissues, though their number and potency diminish with age. Foetal tissues are therefore a richer source of qualitatively better stem cells than adult tissue. But they’re less multipotent than ES cells. One significant advantage foetal cells do have over ES cells is that their use provokes less ethical debate since they can be isolated from foetuses whose development has been aborted for medical reasons, or indeed by miscarriage. Stem cells from human foetal brain have been used to treat patients with Parkinson’s disease and in some cases have conferred sustained clinical improvement." The fact that cloning had disastrous consequences does not justify giving up on genetic research altogether. Let us not ignore the fact that these animals suffer for the sake of bettering human lives and also that most of the world kills then eats sheep, cattle and the other animals being subjected to these trials. [[http://epigenome.eu/en/2,8,19]]
Unethical equivocal to patenting the sun

[[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/gene-patent-trial-begins-_n_447055.html]] The other lawyer in this article had better points. "Attorney Brian Poissant said Myriad Genetics, based in Salt Lake City, and the University of Utah Research Foundation have a right to the patents, especially since they pertain to the process that was developed to isolate chemical composition. He said to disallow the patents would wreck the foundation of the entire biotechnology industry. Court precedent, he added, is on their side. "But the information is not new?" the judge asked at one point. Poissant responded that every invention in the history of man involves something to do with nature. Poissant said a ruling against the company could lead to the invalidity of thousands of gene patents. "This would unravel the foundation of the entire biotechnology industry," he said. U.S. government attorneys have defended the patents, saying the groups do not have the right to even challenge them." In conclusion, gene patents are a legal fact. Biotechnology is more of a boon than a bane and to demolish the entire industry over questionable concerns. (If people are willing to donate blood, why not genes, permission to take blood is equivalent to getting permission to take all the constituents of that that blood sample including genes. While genes maybe worth a lot of money to scientists they are worthless to the layman in him/her.) As for patenting the sun is concerned, large parts of the moon (and several planets that may be colonized by the human race eventually) are already owned. If the sun were seen as potentially inhabitable, it too would be owned by celebrities and scientists alike. [[http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110304184143AABgSNA]]
When entities patent genes they open doors to research that saves lives

Genes should be patented because while they are studied only after they have been acquired. And they cannot be acquired without ownership. When genes are owned their benefits, characteristics, triggers et cetera can be exploited for the benefit of mankind. [[http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html]] "Research scientists who work in public institutions often are troubled by the concept of intellectual property because their norms tell them that science will advance more rapidly if researchers enjoy free access to knowledge. By contrast, the law of intellectual property rests on an assumption that, without exclusive rights, no one will be willing to invest in research and development (R&D). Patenting provides a strategy for protecting inventions without secrecy. A patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling the invention for a limited term, 20 years from application filing date in most of the world. To get a patent, an inventor must disclose the invention fully so as to enable others to make and use it. Within the realm of industrial research, the patent system promotes more disclosure than would occur if secrecy were the only means of excluding competitors. This is less clear in the case of public-sector research, which typically is published with or without patent protection." - [[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml]] On the contrary, monetary/reward is an incentive for research and innovation, as is copyright protection, once a gene discovery has been provisionally patented, the institute to patent it can freely study it hiring the best professionally and selling/licensing to other able research facilities at a price. Putting a price tag on a discovery therefore means reason to make the discovery public and to sell it to those who can use it for the good of the human race.
Transgenic animals are a medium through which human lives can be bettered

Farmers have used selective breeding from time immemorial to produce animals that produce more milk or better meat for example. Genetic engineering and molecular biology offers the farmer an easy way to increase yields and animal produce quality. Transgenic cows produce more milk or milk with less lactose or cholesterol12, certain transgenic pigs and cattle have more meat on them and there are transgenic sheep that grow more wool than their unaltered counterparts. Alternatively farmers use growth hormones to accelerate animal development but this technique leaves hormonal residue in the animal product. "Transplant organs may soon come from transgenic animals. a) Xeno-transplantation Patients die every year for lack of a replacement heart, liver, or kidney. For example, about 5,000 organs are needed each year in the United Kingdom alone.25 Transgenic pigs may provide the transplant organs needed to alleviate the shortfall.9 Currently, Xenotransplantation is hampered by a pig protein that can cause donor rejection but research is underway to remove the pig protein and replace it with a human protein.25 Milk-producing transgenic animals are especially useful for medicines. b) nutritional supplements and pharmaceuticals Products such as insulin, growth hormone, and blood anti-clotting factors may soon be or have already been obtained from the milk of transgenic cows, sheep, or goats.3,12,23 Research is also underway to manufacture milk through transgenesis for treatment of debilitating diseases such as phenylketonuria (PKU), hereditary emphysema, and cystic fibrosis.3,13,23,25 In 1997, the first transgenic cow, Rosie, produced human protein-enriched milk at 2.4 grams per litre. This transgenic milk is a more nutritionally balanced product than natural bovine milk and could be given to babies or the elderly with special nutritional or digestive needs.4,21,23 Rosie’s milk contains the human gene alpha-lactalbumin. A transgenic cow exists that produces a substance to help human red cells grow. c) human gene therapy Human gene therapy involves adding a normal copy of a gene (transgene) to the genome of a person carrying defective copies of the gene. The potential for treatments for the 5,000 named genetic diseases is huge and transgenic animals could play a role. For example, the A. I. Virtanen Institute in Finland produced a calf with a gene that makes the substance that promotes the growth of red cells in humans."- [[http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html]]
Genetic modification is inevitable and can only be beneficial in good hands

If genes were not patented all biotechnological research groups would have a free hand to manipulate genes as they wished. When genes are patented by responsible scientists who have discovered their existence, it is easier to check on their use and misuse, as it is the owners of these genes that are responsible for the effects of these where-ever they are used. Just as a company is liable when there are toxic spills, the owner of a gene is liable if the gene does not act as promised. If there is no patent on the gene, then there is no liability and therefore no controls on its use. AG research is one group that must responsibly administer genetic research or modification. "Genetic modification without cloning? Although cloning trials have been abandoned, AgResearch would continue to develop transgenic cattle, sheep and goats. Suttie said new technology using embryonic stem cells to create transgenic animals was unlikely to cause the same death rates as cloning. However, the research has only begun four months ago. In 2010, two out of 12 kids delivered at term in a trial to develop transgenic goats died at birth. One suffered from chronic arthritis in its front legs. Four other animals died or had to be euthanized in another trial to produce transgenic cattle. Suttie said AgResearch’s work would benefit New Zealand. The trials include creating animals that will produce proteins with pharmaceutical benefits. One goal was to produce a drug like Herceptin more cost-effectively and make it readily available. Herceptin is a monoclonal antibody drug for treating certain breast cancers costing $100 000 a year, but is controversially associated with a high risk of death from heart disease [5]. The announcement to end cloning from AgResearch lacks credibility in view of its continuation with developing transgenic animals. All the signs are that GM and cloning go together, given that the original motivation for NT was to create ‘elite herds’ of GM animals to produce drugs in their milk [2]. It is also why NT cloning is continuing in the US." [[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/death_rates_end_cloning.php]]
At present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for parliament because i...

At present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for parliament because it is viewed (however inaccurately) as a male-dominated institution. Positive discrimination would provide role models for future women MPs to follow; for that reason it need not be a permanent measure. Nor should it be seen as contrary to human rights legislation -- no one is preventing men from standing in elections. This measure would simply try to overcome the institutional sexism in the selection committees of the established political parties, which has for so long prevented a representative number of women from becoming candidates.
Parliaments, particularly in Britain, have a reputation for needless argument rather than cooperatio...

The style of political debate in a country has more to do with its customs and history than with the number of female politicians! The two-party, first-past-the-post structure of the electoral systems in the USA and UK encourages confrontational, negative campaigning. Countries with proportional representation and a tradition of coalition government may develop a different political culture. Furthermore, all-female election campaigns have shown that women are just as capable of arguments ad hominem as men are.
At present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for parliament because i...

A true role model has to be admired. However, if people feel that a woman has been appointed simply for her gender rather than for her talents, then this will damage rather than enhance the status of female MPs. The Opposition are in favour of true meritocracy. The British Labour Party’s policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Human Rights Act, being against the European Convention because it was unfair to potential male candidates.
Positive discrimination compensates women for the many years that they were excluded and placed in t...

Merely glossing ‘positive’ discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The leaders of nations should be the best on offer -- equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. Furthermore, women in the past did not have the same educational opportunities as men -- it is only the generation coming to maturity that did; and the balance of women in politics and business is likely naturally to rectify itself.
Imposing additional taxes on fatty food would be a general, state acknowledged indicator of the nega...

People already know about the negative effects of many products and they still use them because they are cheap, accessible, convenient, etc. Living in a city makes it very hard to lead a healthy lifestyle. People who don’t have the money to afford expensive sports centres stay at home and eat cheap, often fatty foods. There is also a scientifically acknowledged correlation between poverty, lack of exercise and excessive weight in children. This is described in South African research called Children of Nelson Mandela: black children are heavier than white and on average white children in do 2 hours of sports per day, blacks only 30 min.
A fat tax is very lucrative for a state. An article published in the American Journal of Public Heal...

Governments have no incentive to impose additional taxes on fatty food. Different food industry lobbies oppose such tax and exercise pressures on governments. Many food-related multinational companies are big supporters of presidential campaigns in the USA and also have very important lobbies in various other countries. Money gained from such a tax would also probably be channelled into armament programs and other big-budget services instead of directly to consumers.
Being slim is desired in the society. Your physical appearance generates options and sets ones value...

Recent scientific research makes clear that some of us are biologically inclined to overeat, but that the inclination varies, depending on our environment. Slimness as the symbol of beauty is chauvinistic. In many parts of the world being fat means prosperity and fertility. The round belly implies physical stability and economic sufficiency. Promoting one particular type of body image is also dangerous; anorexia among young girls is a serious problem.
Consistency

Food is essential to human life while other heavily taxed products such as cigarettes and alcohol are not. Fast food is a loose definition for a group of foods, some of which are unhealthy and some of which are not. There are lots of different ways in which food can be unhealthy, with varying amounts of fat, salt and harmful chemicals, so where does one draw the line between unhealthy 'fast' food and healthy food? Nobody has to smoke to stay alive, and it's not part of a balanced diet. Fast food, eaten in moderation doesn't have to be a health risk.
People need an incentive to eat more healthy food and avoid unhealthy fats. This will improve people...

People need an incentive to eat more healthy food and avoid unhealthy fats. This will improve people’s health. In a paper published last year in the British Medical Journal, Tom Marshall, a professor at the University of Birmingham, said that taxing fatty foods would prevent hundreds of premature deaths each year, and cut the incidence of heart disease by about 10 per cent.
Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...

Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pressure, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes etc. are the cause of over 50% of deaths in the Arab world. If a fat tax is introduced, fat consumption will fall as consumers save money by buying non-fatty foods. Lower fat and fat-free foods will abound and the society will benefit. Citizens will be leaner, healthier, happier and more productive.
Additional taxes on fatty food would create a disincentive to buy it. Consumers would be stimulated ...

Additional taxes on fatty food would create a disincentive to buy it. Consumers would be stimulated to buy and consume healthier 'non-taxed' food. Consumption of fatty chips, fries, burgers and steaks would go down and consumption of fruit and vegetable would rise. With more people buying healthy local bio products the country's farms and agricultural economy would prosper.
Imposing additional taxes on fatty food would be a general, state acknowledged indicator of the nega...

Imposing additional taxes on fatty food would be a general, state acknowledged indicator of the negative effects such food has. Governments by doing so would discourage their populations from eating unhealthy food; together with the debates that would take place before passing the law, this would draw people's attention to this problem. They would realise the gravity of the problem and start caring more about their lifestyle.
A fat tax is very lucrative for a state. An article published in the American Journal of Public Heal...

A fat tax is very lucrative for a state. An article published in the American Journal of Public Health last year found that 17 U.S. states already have special taxes on soft drinks, candy and snack foods and estimated that these fat taxes already generate more than $1-billion (U.S.) annually. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest estimated that, countrywide, they could raise an additional $1.5-billion. Similar taxes in Canada would raise up to $250-million. The money can be spent on public awareness programs and campaigns, research, etc.
People need an incentive to eat more healthy food and avoid unhealthy fats. This will improve people...

Regardless of the decisions that politicians make on taxation, taxes alone cannot begin to address the larger problems - health-related, social and economic. Health is at least as much about exercise as it is about diet and there is a wider problem with life style that is being recognised by the broader population. Most primary students now get less than one hour of PE weekly, and in many high schools the course is optional.