Michael Crichton on Why Gene Patents Are Bad 367
BayaWeaver writes "Michael Crichton, author of The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park has made a strong case against gene patents in an op-ed for the New York Times. Striking an emotional chord, he begins with 'You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it's only too real.' From there, he moves on to use logic, statistics, and his way with words to make his point. Arguing against the high costs of gene therapies thanks to related patents, he eventually offers hope that one day legislation will de-incentivize the hoarding of scientific knowledge. As he points out: 'When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it — because of patent concerns. There is no clearer indication that gene patents block innovation, inhibit research and put us all at risk.'"
Re:Ah, the global warming guy (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed (Score:1, Interesting)
Man I hate to agree with Mike but...
I just started work as a patent officer and while I don't deal with any genetic-related patents I did wonder why this field was around. Sure it's great that people can protect their ideas but when it comes down to it, a patent is nothing but a legal 20 year monopoly. How would you like to know that someone you loved and cared about died because a very underdeveloped company didn't have the R&D finances to back a mass-market production and the idea the patent was founded around died for 20 years. I do agree that the company should be given some time to themselves to try and take off with the idea, but I think a much shorter time frame would assure that if that company does not have the resources, the true life-saving ideas will still soon hit market.
sadfase (Score:4, Interesting)
Just to be clear on this... (Score:5, Interesting)
When Michael Crichton writes an op-ed piece on gene patents, he's insightful and informed.
Just checking.
challanges "science gone wrong" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost all science fiction is really political and sociological story telling with a veneer of gadgets and aliens that allow the author to use well-crafted hyperbolic reality to avoid the ham-fisted arguments in a political text.
Not saying you aren't right in being annoyed by the politicking of Scifi authors, but it is a pretty long-standing tradition
Sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
Crichton cherry picked the research for his little global warming stance, intentionally skewing wherever possible. That's pretty much the opposite of "thoughtful research".
It's pretty much obvious to the whole world that things are getting warmer, and the vast majority of scientists from around the world are of the opinion that the change is related to human behavior. Even if you think they're wrong, you have got to take into account the fact that it's you against the whole fricking world, and while the world has been wrong before, that's the exception, not the rule.
/. Help Needed... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm against patents for medical technology, because the incentives to the drug companies barely match the desires of the patients. As I recently showed in my blog [blogspot.com], only 14% of drug revenue goes towards R & D, half of this 14% is wasted by looking for new drugs which don't treat diseases better than old ones (but are patentable, hence profitable), and the remaining 7% funds research skewed towards untested, patentable treatments even if well-known drugs might do as good or better a job. We've set up incentives for drug companies to find patentable tech they can then market to us. I think we need an entirely new incentive system, and I think we can do it and still have a free-market-friendly environment for research companies.
In this blog post [blogspot.com], I outline a way for drug companies to get rewarded based on how much good their research does for humanity, using an Mprise [mprize.org]-like system. Companies would get rewards proportional to how much better their treatment was shown to be over the current best treatment.
I have some ideas on how to implement this system so that everybody wins (yes - everybody - don't forget the parable of the broken window [wikipedia.org]), but I would love some input from
Thanks!
Re:Black eye, my ear. (Score:2, Interesting)
That lack of scientific evidence does indeed lump you in with the creationists and flat-earthers. I would GLADLY be proven wrong, and I would encourage you, if you do have evidence we have not seen, to provide it, because being wrong about this would be FANTASTIC.
Re:it's simply absurd (Score:3, Interesting)
What if everyone with Hepatitis C were to sue the 'owner of the genome for Hepatitis C'? A patent would imply the invention, and the unauthorized infection would imply a failure to control and contain said invention adequately. If I 'own' a dog, and it bites someone, I am responsible. If you 'own' a disease and it infects someone, you are responsible. It doesn't sound like much of a leap, if the system allows such absurd ownership in the first place. A dose of liability to go with that ownership would make such ownership much less attractive.
Re:Sounds like a good test case (Score:3, Interesting)
I would attribute it to the strength of our academic research facilities. I'm no expert but I've seen many times drugs developed most of the way by publicly funded universities and then industry buys the rights for a pittance and does the clinical trials. Also having everyone in this country convinced there are magic pills that will solve all of their problems doesn't hurt profits... (witness their advertising)
Chakrabarty case not relevant. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, we'll blame people who insist on interfering with the free market. So that would also include the corn lobby, the pesticide lobby, charities, people who want the U.S. to provide any sort of foreign aid, militant organizations and other assorted hoodlums in those impoverished countries, the U.N., the concept of government itself, etc.
Happy now?
First of all, you're going to have to cite a source on that before I believe you. Second, the point I was trying to make was that the world produces enough food even with lower yields, but it doesn't get to the people who need it because of gluttony, waste and politics.
Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut (Score:1, Interesting)
As a lay person, I have no problem finding scientific inaccuracies in every Crichton book. So while I do find him to be entertaining, I would never assign to him an adjective like trustworthy in regards to scientific inquiry.
Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut (Score:1, Interesting)
Regardless, the question of who is to blame is irrelevant. Our society is too concerned with placing blame when we should instead be concerned with fixing the problem. When it comes to global warming, there are only two (rather broad) areas of study that matter: 1) Is global warming an actual problem and 2) Assuming 1 is true, how do we fix it. Neither of these questions can be answered in a truly scientific manner since we cannot isolate any one cause to show it's true effect. It's just not possible.
In short, you're never going to get "clean science" on that issue because its study is inherantly unscientific. You're never going to get anything except someones best educated guess to these questions. Decisions are going to have to be made based on incomplete data. Enter politics.
Re:I wish that he would keep his mouth shut (Score:2, Interesting)
Crichton is not only not qualified, but demonstrably incompetent when it comes to his evaluations of the evidence in climate science.
Consensus in science is a reliable way for a layperson to get a sense of what the best science is at the moment, because science IS about the evidence, and the bulk of scientists stick to what the evidence establishes and then branch out from there. Most of the accusations that Critchton makes about misconduct are document bullplop and little different from the misrepresentations of biology the ID school engages in.