Talk:Gene patents in the United States

message: In the introduction one can read:
"Patents on genes have only been granted on isolated gene sequences with known functions, and these patents cannot be applied to the naturally occurring genes in humans or any other naturally occurring organism.[1]".
But later it says:
"As of 2010, 40,000 patents exist on an estimated 2,000 human genes, or about 20 percent.[4][5]"
WTF!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.58.160 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 2,000 is indeed 5% of 40,000 if that's what you mean, but that's meaningless in this context. 40,000 is the number of patents, 2000 is the number of genes which have been (apparently) covered in patents, and the 20% bit means that 2,000 genes represents 20% of the total number of human genes - i.e. there are 10,000 human genes. Apparently. Destynova (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  NO.  As the last sentence of the lead paragraph says, "Patents on genes have only been granted on isolated gene sequences with known functions, and these patents cannot be applied to the naturally occurring genes in humans or any other naturally occurring organism.[1]"   Patents are granted on ISOLATED genes - a little strip or circle of DNA all by itself.   You can do things with that -- it is industrially useful.   The genes in your body are (a) naturally occurring so therefore unpatentable;  (b) not good for anything industrially (but very good for you of course).   When I say that an isolated gene is useful, what I mean is the following.  Let's say the gene makes a protein in a bacteria.  The bacteria lives off oil and the protein's job in the cell is breaking down each oil molecule into little bits so that the bacteria can digest it.  A scientist sees that the bacteria can do that, and figures out which strip of DNA in the bacteria = the gene for that protein.  He snips it out.  Now he has something useful.  He can take that, put it in a different bacteria that is great at cranking out tons of protein, catch the protein and purify it, and then... put it in detergent for cleaning clothes, and have a product that can get oil stains out.   This has actually happened - there are enzymes in laundry detergent, that are patented.  Likewise, there is a gene that makes insulin in your body and mine.  Scientists have been isolate it.   That isolated gene can again be put into bacteria, and can crank out insulin, which is given to people with diabetes and save their lives.   Get it?  Isolated gene is useful to actually make things;  the gene in your body is good only for keeping you alive. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid!? 

message: What topic are we choosing? We need a specific topic...
Although the article presents an fairly unbiased approach to the topic, some of it is spoken in 1st/2nd person (...we are the primary source...) in the pro's section and the use of upper case words adds emotion, which in fact doesn't really have a place in an article about legal issues in modern genetics.
In addition, the last line of the 'pro' section ('it's critical that patents continue to be allowed...') implies emotion and unbiased approach. This article needs a cleanup. --Nushoin 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What have we narrowed our debate topic to? 

message: Since when have wikipedia articles turned into a debate? If this were an article about the debate on gene patents, that would be one thing, but this is not.
Here we will be discussing the pros and cons of genetic treatment technology patenting
Is this something you see in the ecyclopedia? No. This is more like an essay than an article. There are no references, and no in depth look at what gene patents are. glocks out 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't believe this is considered an encyclopedic entry 

message: Ok, I'm no scientist, but I'm reading Crichton's newest book, "Next".  In it he claims that the University of California holds more genetic patents than several major pharma companies combined.  I tried to verify this on the internet and ended up here.  It would help those of us with no background on this extremely compelx subject to know who is in on the money.  I believe we are reaching a tipping point where the objectivity of supposedly unbiased research must be questioned.  It is hilarious to me that the main criticisms of "State of Fear" were leveled at Crichton's criticism of the global warming proponents.  That was not the thrust of the book!  It was much more an indictment of a new and very powerful complex of supposed "non-profit" groups, universities, and other parties conventionally thought of as unbiased.  I am as skeptical of claims from this bunch as I am of Exxon, et. al.
:So, to make a long story short (too late, some would say) it would be useful to have a section on just who owns how many patents.  The days of believing anything you hear or read have gone the way of 5 pound cellphones and 10 pound VCR cameras.  
Thank you for your support,
Sarazen 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Next" 

message: I took this out:
: It is very difficult to separate the ethical, scientific and legal issues of patents on gene technologies and materials, because they often accompany one another in all sources of information.
# It intimates the issues could be sorted out easily if the sources were structured differently.
# In fact, it is a commonplace that science, ethics, and law are always and inherantly difficult to separate, because all three kinds of issue are deeply and inherantly involved with human intentions.
#  The statement makes most sense as OR, attempting to explain its author's difficulty with the subject, and concluding the structure of the materials is to blame. If the editor (who wrote this sentence that i removed) wrote most of the rest (of the revision that i found and changed) of that 'graph, then they are a "poor workman blaming their tools". There are plenty of issues here. But whoever would baldly write
#:: denied John the rights to his own spleen.
#: must be innocent of any awareness of how many ways "his own spleen" differs from "his own house": it is a matter of legal fact, and AFAIK essentially uncontested ethical consensus, that no one may sell parts of the body of a living person (whether that person is themself or another). Similarly, the tone suggests an editor who would expect that when a student is allowed to use a generous corporation's laboratory equipment, and by dumb luck stumbles on the basis for a patent, the patent goes to the corporation. (In fact, any claim by the corporation would have to rest on an explicit contract mentioning resulting intellectual property.)  And in the case of such an editor, i see them as suffering, on the contrary, the consequences of  bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.
--Jerzy•t 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: We need to focus on the History of the gene patents and the legal and scientific milestones it achieves. The criticism and debate should not be the focus of this entry. glocks out 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Reading about this general topic isn't this true? I mean if you patent a gene you can not only force other researchers or hospitals to be unable to study about specific diseases, you may actually prohibit some people to reproduce have children. The following example related to Canavan disease shows that this is reality.
* Gene Patent: For Mankind's Good, or For Profit? 
More information.
* Patenting Life? - An Introduction to the Issues
* Patenting life is owning life
President Bush urges a ban on gene patents 
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.234.230 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patenting Genes violates 13th Amendment concerning Slavery? 

message: some interesting insights regarding gene patenting may be found in this slashdot discussion
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  insight info 

message: Someone put two big alerts on the page, indicating that the article needs to be globalized and another indicating that it is biased in some way, and directed interested people to this page.  I see nothing here raising a question about neutrality or globalization.   I am deleting the alerts.  If the person or persons who put up the alerts want(s) to re-put them that is great, but please do come here and state the concern! 140.251.150.42 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 "not worldwide view" and "not neutral"? 

message: see NY Times, published October 29, 2010: U.S. Says Genes Should Not Be Eligible for Patents Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Says Unmodified Genes Should Not Be Eligible for Patents 

message: The paragraph about the August 16 decision needs some elaboration. Did they uphold the entire patent, or only the sections they approved before?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.13.242 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 16 Decision 

message: I think the article is biased towards the USA. It says that "Patents on genes have only been granted on isolated gene sequences with known functions, and these patents cannot be applied to the naturally occurring genes in humans or any other naturally occurring organism." I do not know whether that sentence is factually correct, but the stated source is insufficient as it only covers the patenting criteria by the US patent office, while patent rules vary by country. The history section only covers the United States, the controversy section seems to be broader but actually only covers discussions about US law and US patents and the final section specifically covers a US lawsuit. From this I conclude that the entire article is about gene patenting in the USA and should be extended with the situation in other countries, there is already another article about the situation in Australia, and an article about an EU directive on gene patenting that may link to suitable sources. For now I will add 'in the USA' before the sentence I cited in the first two lines. PinkShinyRose (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% that this is focused on the US. Let's change the title to Gene Patents in the United States.Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Made move as I suggested above.Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic bias towards situation in the USA