Life is a commodity

by donkey 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  donkey

  With the advances in genetic engineering we are entering the new commercialism: patents on living things.

  Due the fact that we are able to modify genes in living organisms or create new or hybrid organisms governments and corporations have been patenting evrything that moves. Do you agree with allowing them to do so? Should the patents be internationally enforced? If we take out the financial incentive will we experience the benefits from the science?

  I am intrigued by what others think of this.

  Donkey
• 

  donkey

  Some background on how this became legal:

  Ananda Chakrabarty, a microbiologist at the General Electric Research and

  The patent was denied and ultimately ended up going though the court system all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter.

  Other countries such as India have refused to allow patents on living organisms - so we enter the biotech age with conflicting world views on the reality of the industry. Biotech will forever change the face of this planet - for better or for worse. Conflicts over the ethics and attempts to stop it will continue but will ultimately fail. Having life patents will ensure that it occurs - there is always success where there is incentive and putting the patentability on the line has enabled this to occur.

  By the way at this time we cannot patent higher life forms but we can patent the process and building blocks for creating new varieties. One of the interesting conclusions from this is that Patenting leads to Ownership Thus in line with the 13th amendment which prohibits slavery humans cannot be patented in the USA. This has some interesting consequences for us such as: what truly is a human?
• 

  badboy

  they were thinking of patenting genes(snpS)ETC,they were discussing whether it was ethical.
• 

  donkey

  People currently have surgical devices implanted. These are made of plastic, steel or other substances. They almost all without exception bare the patent of the manufacturer. No one has issues with seeing these devices patented.

  Now suppose we have a manmade "living" organ grown by scientists working for a manufacturer. The organ is probably constructed by growing DNA strands and tiisue culture into the organ. This has then become an invention. Is it right to consider this organ as a patentable DEVICE? At what point should we say it ceases being a device vs a lving thing?

  Are we now cyborgs if we accept one of the artifically grown organisms? If so is a cyborg still human? At what point does the line get crossed to where the cyborg is a machine vs a human? Machines can be owned. Humans can't. This then becomes an exercise of arbitrarines moderated by law.

  I know this subject is probably boring to some but I find it facinating because it challenges the core of who or what we are. By extension is is applicable because it then challenges the notion of God. For instance when the "cyber-human" gets closer and closer to the line - the arbitrary line drawn by man-made law does this "cyber-human" have a soul? Where does the soul reside - what is it? At what point is there no soul?

  I will now climb back in my box and hibernate to see if anyone else is interested in this stuff.

  Donkey
• 

  Satanus

  This is an interesting subject. Capitalism seems to be the best motivater, at least at the present time. There are a few individuals who are like nicola tesla and henry ford, who have higher ideals. These peoples' accomplishments are usually forgotten, and they are miligned.

  SS
• 

  donkey

  Many people have a gut answer: NO. I had that answer too when I first heard about this subject.

  But then you look at examples like DNA chips, somatic gene therapy. The imminent prospect of genetic engineering of human eggs, sperm, and embryonic cells is paving the way for the wholesale alteration of the human species and the birth of a commercially driven eugenics civilization.

  So something like a DNA chip - a commercially engineered "device". Does it behhove the engineers who created it to seek a profit? Can they prevent others from reverse engineering it and then just blatantly copying it without a protection such as a patent? If not then there is no incentive to invest and do the R&D required to produce wonders like the DNA chip.

  So I am in 2 minds about this whole issue. I want a boundary but I cannot decide where the right place is for the boundary - just the same way as I feel over abortion. I realize the boundary will be arbitrary and the law will set the boundary. This is disconcerting to me as I dislike the auhthority imposed by law because it is so random and the two sides of the line are so close with such different consequences.

  Donkey
• 

  donkey

  If a human who has device implanted into it is still a human can a machine that has human parts also be a human?