• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Your vote on this proposal would be?


  • Total voters
    40
i work in molecular biology, and have also worked in food safety research. we aren't trying to kill you. scientists are trying to make corn grow in very dry environments, and to prevent pests from decimating crops.

i'm all for thoroughly testing any new kind of crop for safety. as for outright banning, though, not at all. that would be dumb.

just out of curiosity, though, what's your science background?

Hey man, look what you guys did to the tomato.:roll:
 
i work in molecular biology, and have also worked in food safety research. we aren't trying to kill you. scientists are trying to make corn grow in very dry environments, and to prevent pests from decimating crops.

i'm all for thoroughly testing any new kind of crop for safety. as for outright banning, though, not at all. that would be dumb.

just out of curiosity, though, what's your science background?

Well first of all Felix at the molecular level I happen to be a very complicated body of work just as you are, and you know what they say, 'know thy self' etc...
I am running short on time today though but 'I'll be back'. while I'm away why not read up on terminator gene technology:

Genetic use restriction technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting ...

Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops
filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.html
The technology in the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps: Scientists add terminator genes to a crop. The seed ...
Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. ... If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see ...

Also maybe study these notes, they are also by the numbers ;)

 
Well first of all Felix at the molecular level I happen to be a very complicated body of work just as you are, and you know what they say, 'know thy self' etc...
I am running short on time today though but 'I'll be back'. while I'm away why not read up on terminator gene technology:

Genetic use restriction technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting ...

Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops
filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.html
The technology in the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps: Scientists add terminator genes to a crop. The seed ...
Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. ... If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see ...

Also maybe study these notes, they are also by the numbers ;)



so, basically, you have no formal background in science or very little, yet you want to ban all research involving genetic modification. you realize that you'd effectively shut down all subcloning, and along with it, the entire biotech / research industry in your state, right?

i'm sorry, that's simply too foolish of an idea to debate. additionally, i don't read conspiracy blogs, so don't expect me to respond to any blog links that you might be preparing to post. pubmed is a good resource for peer-reviewed, legitimate articles, though.

if you'd like to talk about tweaking the regulatory / oversight process for any modified food product, i'm fine with that. all food products should be thoroughly tested for safety, and new crops should also be studied by independent entities. i would love a job like that.
 
Well I'm glad your confident, can be a healthy thing, but should try to be correct because it helps to...
The USA defines 'insects' separately from 'animals', thus laws need to be written accordingly...see endangered species act for standing example ;)

ps...please learn definition of organism...thank you<3

Current legal definitions are totally and utterly inadequate for properly handling the technologies of biotechnology. This bill was not written by anyone even vaguely familiar with the field and is filled with loopholes.

For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

That definition is complete garbage. You could easily get around the whole thing simply by modifying the organism in the wild which not not qualify for "in vitro". "fragments from more than one organism" doesn't cover synthetic DNA or reverse transcriptase from an RNA template. Viruses don't count as "living organisms".

Bottom line, you don't understand enough about the field to even come close to being able to reasonably regulate it.
 
Harry, I said nothing about 'right' or 'wrong' either for that mater, this is your terminology.
Nature simply inherently has all the numbers to work with and we simply as of yet don't.
The proposal posted here simply forces science where profit motives have supplanted such.
If you were really a fan of the 'facts' and science then you would surely be in support of this proposal because it demands such before allowing the 'not ready for prime time' biotech players to bungle the gene pool much as other profit motivated 'experts' in other sectors have handled the economy etc for example.
Finally Harry, to that bit you keep parroting at the end of every post...you force me to then feed you crackers...I only wield the all powerful quote of destiny again because you have brought such on yourself...I did attempt mercy and reconciliation as I am required, but that seems to have failed...I know the Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny is devastating, but don't fight the urge to continue even if it is just involuntary conditioned reflex of the nervous system, much like a decapitated snakes head will still bite even though oxygen has been cut off from the brain, or how its heart will still beat and the body will still coil and strike out in reflex up to a day after its beheading.

Yes, you keep parroting the same crap.
No I'm not going to change my position based on "nature has all the numbers, we don't."

The information you keep posting is arbitrary, at best.
 
I usually hold off on wielding the quote of destiny, but in this case I will make an exception because all but for the above poster clearly call for being dispatched with prejudice and forthwith, therefore you have sealed your own fate and I must admit I love the smell of biotech defenders in the late afternoon...smells like...victory lol...
I have found that to wield the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny proves the undeniable point much like a simple decapitation or like game over in the video game debate version...once wielded not even the top Monsanto et al scientists can argue against the simple fatal truth of it and even Einstein would in all likelihood argue in defense of its simple equation logic with respect to not having all the numbers to the equations of life itself let alone its symbiotic nature and the possibly devastating chain reactive effects this technology could unleash as we allow the corps/gov to General Custer us all forward redesigning and privatizing the gene pool (we all swim in and come from) for profit...the quote of destiny is awesome and should only be used if ready to behead your opponent. Sometimes its useful to draw your opponent out far enough so as to be naked for their beheading and you folks are there and bare back...
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld




To the one undecided poster I suggest researching some down this red road:
Pirate Television - Thomas Linzey & Katherine Davies: Who Has The Right? - YouTube
" Published on Mar 7, 2012

Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patented by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues."


You have a way with literary ability, yet you lack absolutely any knowledge of genetic engineering. Leave the science to the scientists.
 
Hiding from new technology is a step backwards that we shouldn't take. Not that genetic engineering of crops is a new technology anymore. This sounds like the result of a bunch of ignorant yuppies and their love for organic produce.
 
Well first of all Felix at the molecular level I happen to be a very complicated body of work just as you are, and you know what they say, 'know thy self' etc...
I am running short on time today though but 'I'll be back'. while I'm away why not read up on terminator gene technology:

Genetic use restriction technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting ...

Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops
filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.html
The technology in the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps: Scientists add terminator genes to a crop. The seed ...
Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. ... If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see ...

Also maybe study these notes, they are also by the numbers ;)



"In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize terminator technology, and has kept that pledge on its website to the present day.[97][101] The Delta and Pine Land Company intended to commercialize the technology,[96] but D&PL was acquired by Monsanto in 2007.[102]"

Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
so, basically, you have no formal background in science or very little, yet you want to ban all research involving genetic modification. you realize that you'd effectively shut down all subcloning, and along with it, the entire biotech / research industry in your state, right?

i'm sorry, that's simply too foolish of an idea to debate. additionally, i don't read conspiracy blogs, so don't expect me to respond to any blog links that you might be preparing to post. pubmed is a good resource for peer-reviewed, legitimate articles, though.

if you'd like to talk about tweaking the regulatory / oversight process for any modified food product, i'm fine with that. all food products should be thoroughly tested for safety, and new crops should also be studied by independent entities. i would love a job like that.

Oh Felix, someone as 'educated' as you should at least be able to read don't ya think?
Try reading sec 3(c) because it contradicts your assumptive conclusions about banning research.
In fact the proposal demands the science be complete by the very nature of the restrictions it provides.
 
Current legal definitions are totally and utterly inadequate for properly handling the technologies of biotechnology. This bill was not written by anyone even vaguely familiar with the field and is filled with loopholes.



That definition is complete garbage. You could easily get around the whole thing simply by modifying the organism in the wild which not not qualify for "in vitro". "fragments from more than one organism" doesn't cover synthetic DNA or reverse transcriptase from an RNA template. Viruses don't count as "living organisms".

Bottom line, you don't understand enough about the field to even come close to being able to reasonably regulate it.

Ok so first on another post you incorrectly write that the proposal would ban all research and now your writing that the wording is not strong enough and full of loop holes?
lol...make up your mind...don't be like the squirrel who keeps running back and forth in indecision when a car is racing towards you...just pick a direction and run...
Seriously then, if its so get around-able then whats the problem?
You said your against banning and restriction so apparently this proposal according to you would be no problem to over come from Monsanto et al's perspective right?
Well then why be against it?
Why not give folks the opportunity to learn about the topic?
People assume much about this topic and I've noticed that usually such is incorrect, like Harry's notion of hybrids = GEO or Felix (who claims works in the field) lumping insects with 'animals' with regard to the laws in the USA...I could go on but it should be clear that folks have a lot to learn about this critical issue.
 
Hiding from new technology is a step backwards that we shouldn't take. Not that genetic engineering of crops is a new technology anymore. This sounds like the result of a bunch of ignorant yuppies and their love for organic produce.


Try demanding responsible technology instead of doing nothing while the public gene pool you swim in is privatized and manipulated for profit.
Thats a step forward not backward and thats what the proposition seeks to do.
Demand the science before allowing Monsanto et al to demand their profits.
 
"In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize terminator technology, and has kept that pledge on its website to the present day.[97][101] The Delta and Pine Land Company intended to commercialize the technology,[96] but D&PL was acquired by Monsanto in 2007.[102]"

Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol omg how have you survived to live until now?

Yes no doubt a Monsanto pledge is worth its weight in either gold or maybe dung...and either way such is only a momentary pledge lol...good luck Pollyanna...
 
lol omg how have you survived to live until now?

Yes no doubt a Monsanto pledge is worth its weight in either gold or maybe dung...and either way such is only a momentary pledge lol...good luck Pollyanna...

14 years later, we are still worried about Monsanto killing the whole world huh?
 
Try demanding responsible technology instead of doing nothing while the public gene pool you swim in is privatized and manipulated for profit.
Thats a step forward not backward and thats what the proposition seeks to do.
Demand the science before allowing Monsanto et al to demand their profits.

Hyperbole.
 
Try demanding responsible technology instead of doing nothing while the public gene pool you swim in is privatized and manipulated for profit.
Thats a step forward not backward and thats what the proposition seeks to do.
Demand the science before allowing Monsanto et al to demand their profits.

See, all of that is fine. Monsanto possesses an unconscionable amount of power and I don't think that genes should be able to be owned, least of all human genes. Monsanto is another example of the insane copyright system we have in this country, that does a whole lot more than ensure that a creative person can earn a living from their work. But that's not what the bill in the OP is about. The bill in the OP is about banning all genetic modification, and that's just stupid. You want to regulate Monsanto, do that. Write a bill about ownership of genetics, not about banning technology. Your OP does not accomplish what you want it to accomplish.
 
Oh Felix, someone as 'educated' as you should at least be able to read don't ya think?
Try reading sec 3(c) because it contradicts your assumptive conclusions about banning research.
In fact the proposal demands the science be complete by the very nature of the restrictions it provides.

I'm convinced whoever wrote that convoluted mess didn't pass freshman cell bio.

as you understand it, which specific procedures are banned, which are exempted, and in what specific situations?
 
The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.:peace

"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;

section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

section 2. DEFINITIONS:

2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

Vehemently no. I strongly oppose bioluddites, they are the absolute bane of the green movement.
 
People do not have to buy the Monsanto Round-up ready seeds--it just allows them to plant rows closer together and be able to spray herbicides over their crops without killing the crop.
 
There is also an almost pathological inability for anti-GMO activists to differentiate between business practices and scientific standards and rigors. There is no major scientific body on the planet that has found a harmful link or negative differentiation between 'synthetic' foods and organisms and natural ones.
 
While not opposed to genetic engineering itself, I am leery of it for the same reason I'm leery of nuclear power.

The risks for both are potentially exacerbated by greed.

And "heirloom" plants and animals should NOT be patentable.

Further, if your patented genes "contaminate" someone elses fields, you certainly shouldn't be able to sue the contaminee.

I'm still surprised that plants with animal genes, etc., are legal to distribute in a reproductively viable form. They expend a lot of effort making "suicide seeds", but a lot of GM stuff isn't. Always wondered aboit that. Fait accompli?
 
Hyperbole.

Sweet than maybe here's more along those same lines...

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/264013_411486642269471_1650498274_n.png

Also here's just a bit more that to you no doubt will find hyperbolic as well:

BRIA 23 4 c Patenting Life

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
WINTER 2008 (Volume 23, No. 4)

Intellectual Property

The Origins of Patent and Copyright Law | Digital Piracy | Patenting Life | The Cheating Problem
Patenting Life

The U.S. Patent Office issues patents for new inventions. With the development of biotechnology, scientists are designing new bacteria, plants, and even animals for medical and other uses. The issue arises: Should patents be issued for these living things?

Patenting living things has always provoked controversy. Some of the controversy hinges on moral and ethical issues, and some on legal disputes. Another area of controversy is whether patenting cell lines, specific genes, and diagnostic tests actually helps or hinders medical care.

The Supreme Court has not considered this issue since 1980. Since that time, many revolutionary discoveries in biotechnology have occurred. Scientists, lawyers, and businessmen agree that the law on patenting life has not kept up with new discoveries and that it is time for Congress to act.

Can Living Things Be Patented?

Ananda Mahan Charkrbarty grew up in India. After finishing his PhD, he came to the United States and in the1970s was working for General Electric in genetic engineering. Charkrabarty invented a new kind of bacteria to which he added plasmids (small pieces of DNA, separate from the chromosome) from other bacteria. His multiplasmid bacteria grew faster and better on crude oil than any of the single plasmid bacteria. His new bacteria were good at cleaning up oil spills because they consumed oil so quickly. After meeting with a patent attorney, he decided to apply for a patent on his oil-eating bacteria.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied Chakrabarty's patent application in 1973. The PTO ruled that Chakrabarty's bacterium was a "product of nature" and no one may get a patent for living things. Seven years later, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overruled the PTO.

In its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed the language of the Patent Act (35 U.S. Code 101), which states:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The court held that the terms "manufacture" and "composition of matter" should be interpreted broadly and that no history or case law indicated otherwise. It cited a congressional committee report from1952 (when the Patent Act was amended) stating that Congress intended people to be able to patent "anything under the sun that is made by man." The court acknowledged that true "products of nature" may not be patented: "Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter." But Chakrabarty's bacteria had different DNA and different properties from any bacteria found in nature. "His discovery," the court ruled, "is not nature's handiwork but his own,"and therefore may be patented.

The decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty did not place limits on what types of living organisms could be patented. And during the 1970s and 1980s biotechnology was exploding. New technologies were being developed to diagnose diseases and develop new drugs. One of those new technologies involved the use of human cell lines. A human cell line is made from cells taken from the body and modified so that they continue to reproduce indefinitely. Establishing a cell line from human tissue is extremely difficult and rarely succeeds. One scientist who developed a cell line was Dr. David Golde at the UCLA Medical center. Dr. Golde had a patient named John Moore who had leukemia. Golde took samples of Moore's blood and other bodily fluids, and in October 1976 removed Moore's spleen. After the surgery, Moore continued to visit Dr. Golde, who kept taking tissue and blood samples from his patient. By August 1979, Golde had established a cell line from Moore's T-lymphocytes, a type of blood cell. In 1983, the Regents of the University of California applied for a patent on the "Mo cell line." The patent was issued in March 1984, listing Golde and a colleague as inventors. The patent was licensed to a biotech company, which agreed to make sizable royalty payments to the Regents and to Dr. Golde. The cell line patent turned out to be a valuable invention for Golde, but Moore received nothing.

read the rest here: BRIA 23 4 c Patenting Life - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Should maybe also view this...





:2wave::peace
 
Sweet than maybe here's more along those same lines...

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/264013_411486642269471_1650498274_n.png

Also here's just a bit more that to you no doubt will find hyperbolic as well:

BRIA 23 4 c Patenting Life

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Rights in Action
WINTER 2008 (Volume 23, No. 4)

Intellectual Property

The Origins of Patent and Copyright Law | Digital Piracy | Patenting Life | The Cheating Problem
Patenting Life

The U.S. Patent Office issues patents for new inventions. With the development of biotechnology, scientists are designing new bacteria, plants, and even animals for medical and other uses. The issue arises: Should patents be issued for these living things?

Patenting living things has always provoked controversy. Some of the controversy hinges on moral and ethical issues, and some on legal disputes. Another area of controversy is whether patenting cell lines, specific genes, and diagnostic tests actually helps or hinders medical care.

The Supreme Court has not considered this issue since 1980. Since that time, many revolutionary discoveries in biotechnology have occurred. Scientists, lawyers, and businessmen agree that the law on patenting life has not kept up with new discoveries and that it is time for Congress to act.

Can Living Things Be Patented?

Ananda Mahan Charkrbarty grew up in India. After finishing his PhD, he came to the United States and in the1970s was working for General Electric in genetic engineering. Charkrabarty invented a new kind of bacteria to which he added plasmids (small pieces of DNA, separate from the chromosome) from other bacteria. His multiplasmid bacteria grew faster and better on crude oil than any of the single plasmid bacteria. His new bacteria were good at cleaning up oil spills because they consumed oil so quickly. After meeting with a patent attorney, he decided to apply for a patent on his oil-eating bacteria.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied Chakrabarty's patent application in 1973. The PTO ruled that Chakrabarty's bacterium was a "product of nature" and no one may get a patent for living things. Seven years later, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overruled the PTO.

In its decision, the Supreme Court analyzed the language of the Patent Act (35 U.S. Code 101), which states:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter . . . may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The court held that the terms "manufacture" and "composition of matter" should be interpreted broadly and that no history or case law indicated otherwise. It cited a congressional committee report from1952 (when the Patent Act was amended) stating that Congress intended people to be able to patent "anything under the sun that is made by man." The court acknowledged that true "products of nature" may not be patented: "Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter." But Chakrabarty's bacteria had different DNA and different properties from any bacteria found in nature. "His discovery," the court ruled, "is not nature's handiwork but his own,"and therefore may be patented.

The decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty did not place limits on what types of living organisms could be patented. And during the 1970s and 1980s biotechnology was exploding. New technologies were being developed to diagnose diseases and develop new drugs. One of those new technologies involved the use of human cell lines. A human cell line is made from cells taken from the body and modified so that they continue to reproduce indefinitely. Establishing a cell line from human tissue is extremely difficult and rarely succeeds. One scientist who developed a cell line was Dr. David Golde at the UCLA Medical center. Dr. Golde had a patient named John Moore who had leukemia. Golde took samples of Moore's blood and other bodily fluids, and in October 1976 removed Moore's spleen. After the surgery, Moore continued to visit Dr. Golde, who kept taking tissue and blood samples from his patient. By August 1979, Golde had established a cell line from Moore's T-lymphocytes, a type of blood cell. In 1983, the Regents of the University of California applied for a patent on the "Mo cell line." The patent was issued in March 1984, listing Golde and a colleague as inventors. The patent was licensed to a biotech company, which agreed to make sizable royalty payments to the Regents and to Dr. Golde. The cell line patent turned out to be a valuable invention for Golde, but Moore received nothing.

read the rest here: BRIA 23 4 c Patenting Life - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Should maybe also view this...





:2wave::peace


Sounds fine. Golde developed invaluable a product that was invaluable to research. What exactly did John Moore do to develop the line? The line wouldn't have been developed without Dr. Golde's research. The line could have easily been developed with a different patient's cells. John Moore was going to lose his spleen anyways due to his cancer, the spleen might as well have been used for research to save lives rather then been thrown in the dumpster.

What's next, I sign up for organ donations, but demand the that recipient pay my family rent for having my organs? It is a ridiculous argument.
 
See, all of that is fine. Monsanto possesses an unconscionable amount of power and I don't think that genes should be able to be owned, least of all human genes. Monsanto is another example of the insane copyright system we have in this country, that does a whole lot more than ensure that a creative person can earn a living from their work. But that's not what the bill in the OP is about. The bill in the OP is about banning all genetic modification, and that's just stupid. You want to regulate Monsanto, do that. Write a bill about ownership of genetics, not about banning technology. Your OP does not accomplish what you want it to accomplish.

Actually the posted proposal does not ban "all genetic modification" as you have stated, anyone who reads sec 3(c) should be able to understand such.
As to the point of patenting, that issue has been as yet settled by the supreme court thereby requiring an act of congress to change such and good luck getting congress to act on such because at this point Monsanto et al has not only feathered that nest sufficiently enough to detour any such measures, but they also hold a national security status in many ongoing projects that is like a trump card when anyone seeks to impose on or impede their abilities.
Outside of ballot measures forcing the brakes on this entire area until responsible unbiased full scope science is completed, only a supersized mythical/magical all powerful type lawsuit could over turn the existing case law. See the post before this (my post) for more info.
 
Back
Top Bottom