Scientists seek to patent life-forms....

So Glad

Scientists working to build a life form from scratch have applied to patent the broad method they plan to use to create their "synthetic organism". Dr Craig Venter, the man who led the private sector effort to sequence the human genome, has been working for years to create a man-made organism. But constructing a primitive microbe from a kit of genes is a daunting task. Dr Venter says, eventually, these life forms could be designed to make biofuels and absorb greenhouse gases. The publication of the patent application has angered some environmentalists.

Seems very wrong to "patent" life...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6733797.stm

Ciaran500

Don't see anything wrong with it. They are patenting the process to make them not the organisms.

OctavarIan

Ciaran500 wrote:

Don't see anything wrong with it. They are patenting the process to make them not the organisms.

article wrote:

The J Craig Venter Institute's US patent application claims exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic "free-living organism that can grow and replicate" made using those genes.

No it seems like they're trying to patent the organism, which is a bit odd. It has exciting potential though if they can actually get somewhere with the project.

ctc_celtic

doesn't this sound like the start of a bad sci-fi movie.

playing god,,,,, dont mess with mother nature,,,,

organisms designed to help man-kind, scientists lose control, they start to spread all over they would, start killing everything, turn people into zombies, American Nukes thems, end credits.

So Glad

That's what I'm saying, it's like something out of George Orwell's novels. Very end of world-ish, bad vibes on this one.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

afaiik there are already genes patented, it's not that big a stel top whole organisms

still leaves me with an icky feeling though

AngryBadger

The article seems pretty vague to me.

They have been able to remove 101 of its 482 genes without killing the bacterium, meaning that 381 were required for replication.

That doesn't PROVE the other 381 were necessary, it's implied but not proof in any way.

Even if the corect set of genes necessary for survival was identified there's no way of knowing how robust such an organism would be, or how/if that robustness would persist when new genes/sets of genes were introduced to give it additional functionality?

Undoubtedly there's an ethical consideration that needs to be debated as regards patenting a "lifeform", but I'd say we're closer to growing complete functioning organs from stem cells than we are to synthesising complete organisms in the lab.

oh and I'm basing all this on the BBC article, can't be arsed going looking for the guys papers at this hour.

Red Hand

I thought that certain grain breeds were already patented due to genetic modification?

So Glad

Yeah but this is life-forms. Not only existing ones but ones they wish to make themselves, they want to patent them.

r3nu4l

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I thought that certain grain breeds were already patented due to genetic modification?

Yep, plenty of genes and organisms have been patented including strains of bacteria that have been engineered to produce certain proteins. It's a lucrative (and necessary) business.

I've developed lots of engineered organisms myself over the years, as indeed many scientists have. Some of these are patent-worthy, the majority aren't.

The difference here is that these organisms are designed from scratch and will contain synthetic genes, designed in many cases to produce 'proteins' that don't already exist in nature or proteins that are similar to those already in nature but either less toxic or modified to behave differently.

As a scientist I recognise that there are inherent dangers involved but think that this research should continue. As for patents...a necessary evil in the modern world

bonkey

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I thought that certain grain breeds were already patented due to genetic modification?

So Glad wrote:

Yeah but this is life-forms.

I coulda sworn grain was a life-form.

bonkey

r3nu4l wrote:

designed in many cases to produce 'proteins' that don't already exist in nature

Forgive the dumb question, but shouldn't that read "that aren't known to exist in nature"?

And if so, it raises the interesting question that if they are patented for being created artificially, but later found to exist naturally, will that qualify as prior art?

While I have nothing against the concept being put forward, my concern would be that you will have abuse of the system where natural-but-rare proteins will be found but not declared, then synthesized, then the synth-version patented. Then when the natural one emerges, the patent-holder will claim rights over it, and limit its use because its only "right and proper" that their investment be protected.

r3nu4l

bonkey wrote:

Forgive the dumb question, but shouldn't that read "that aren't known to exist in nature"?

Not a dumb question and in fact a correct statement but probably more correct would be to say "that aren't known and are highly unlikely to exist in nature".

From my reading around the subject (over the past year or so) there are plans afoot to develop proteins that in theory cannot possibly exist in nature because some of the 'nucleotides' and 'amino acids' that these life-forms will be supplied with will be man-made and contain elements that have not yet been hinted at in any known life-form and in fact are synthetic man-made forms of these compounds.

AlmightyCushion

bonkey wrote:

While I have nothing against the concept being put forward, my concern would be that you will have abuse of the system where natural-but-rare proteins will be found but not declared, then synthesized, then the synth-version patented. Then when the natural one emerges, the patent-holder will claim rights over it, and limit its use because its only "right and proper" that their investment be protected.

You make a very valid point there. While I think preventing abuse of the system is what should be done the problem remains that someone could spend millions artificially produce a protein only to have a naturally occuring one found before they can bring the product to market.

kevmy

ctc_celtic wrote:

doesn't this sound like the start of a bad sci-fi movie.

playing god,,,,, dont mess with mother nature,,,,

organisms designed to help man-kind, scientists lose control, they start to spread all over they would, start killing everything, turn people into zombies, American Nukes thems, end credits.

Sorry but I hate this argument. It will destroy the world blah, blah, blah end of humanity as we know it blah, blah blah.
We have watched to many films people they're are very few mad scientists out there and even less funding. In my professional experience you will not find a more ethical and modest bunch of people on a whole than scientists. All studies of this nature need to get ethical approval from the funding source and the university (I'm sure r3nu4l will back me up on this).
I mean seriously what else have you learned from sci-fi that you apply to your everyday life??

scojones

After Hours will ruin this thread. Off to Humanities.

AlmightyCushion

It turns out that Humanities killed it.

r3nu4l

kevmy wrote:

In my professional experience you will not find a more ethical and modest bunch of people on a whole than scientists. All studies of this nature need to get ethical approval from the funding source and the university (I'm sure r3nu4l will back me up on this).

Ethics is becoming increasingly important in Science, indeed my old Professor at NUIM 'retired' because he wanted to give more time to his work with the UN and WHO bioethics committees!

We had to get ethical approval a few years ago to test an anti-bacterial handsoap on students in our laboratory practicals. This was despite the fact that anti-bacterial handwashes, soaps and washing-up liquids are in use in homes all across the country. Thirty years ago, the test would have been conducted without anyones knowledge.

All scientists approve of ethics committees and input from the public. It makes things more difficult but it is necessary to safeguard scientists and the public. What they don't approve of is reactionary types who have already made up their minds before they even have the full information in front of them.

Capt'n Midnight

you cannot patent the produce of nature

20 years ago there was a type of bacteria missing a protein. So they mutated another strain that had the protein to produce an artificial strain missing the protein. And patented that, not natural but only differing from a natural occuring strain in it's patentability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-minus_bacteria

is a nickname given to a variant of the common bacterium Pseudomonas syringae (P. syringae). This strain of P. syringae lacks the ability to produce a certain surface protein, usually found on wild-type "ice-plus" P. syringae. This protein found on the outer bacterial cell wall acts as the nucleating centers for ice crystals. This facilitates ice formation, hence the designation "ice-plus." The ice-minus variant of P. syringae is a mutant, lacking the gene responsible for ice-nucleating surface protein production. This lack of surface protein provides a less favorable environment for ice formation. Both strains of P. syringae occur naturally, but recombinant DNA technology has allowed for the synthetic removal or alteration of specific genes, enabling the creation of the ice-minus strain.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4766077-description.html

Ice nucleation deficient microorganisms by genetic manipulation
US Patent Issued on August 23, 1988

Most software patents fail in court.


As for doom sayers, - how many of you realise that gene transfer between different species of bacteria is possible and how few types of bacteria are responsible for nitrogen fixation ? While the chance of something screwing up nitrogen fixation are very low the consequences are enormous.