View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #71
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    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.

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    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?
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  3. #73
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Hyperbole.
    Sweet than maybe here's more along those same lines...

    http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...50498274_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...






  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Sweet than maybe here's more along those same lines...

    http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...50498274_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...





    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.

  5. #75
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.

  6. #76
    Student BigRedChief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In my mind
    Last Seen
    07-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    200

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    I would vote no. Genetic engineering won't harm anything that animal husbandry and selective breeding doesn't. It just does it faster.

    And genetically modified food is going to be a big part of what helps feed the rapidly growing population of this planet. That isn't to say it should be completely unregulated, but I wouldn't vote to ban it.

    On a side note, you might get more responses to your post if you put a shorter description of what the law does in simpler terms.
    THIS!

    Wheres the cliff notes version?
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The constitution says corporations have some of the same rights as "persons".

  7. #77
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    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?
    Why not consider the reverse scenario?
    What if patented genetics pollute the commons?
    Currently the only recognition in law goes to the intellectual property, there is no recognition of the commons in that respect in current law.
    You and I and everyone 'own' the commons collectively and hold the right to access such in responsible dependency for our common existence, so how can Monsanto et al's right to also access such for creating private intellectual property somehow out weigh our collective rights to protect our rights to accessing the original property especially if said original property has been genetically redesigned and through the chain reactive effects of procreation has now permeated into the commons?
    Its like the chicken and the egg...can you really get one without the other in this area? The posted proposal would be the only existing protection of said commons in current law with respect to this issue and this discussion etc...so while opinions are valid, reality rolls on like a speeding locomotive.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Also DNA, it is really unnecessary to talk in legislative or civil legalese, just say plainly what you mean. I was flipping through the thread and I think the constant quoted references to the 'commons' and your associated terminology is unnecessarily cumbersome. If you are worried about natural lifeforms and organisms being patented, and worried that GMO's may result in contamination of public and private land then say so.

  9. #79
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    The truth is, we don't fully understand the implications of genetic modification. More testing was needed before its practices became mainstream. In fact, Monsanto's GMFs are destroying the natural variety of corn crops and many other crops. Corporate interests are at play here. More caution is needed!


  10. #80
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013



    97% of genetic variation of the vegetables grown at the turn of the 20th century are now extinct. Genetic variety is the entire purpose of sexual reproduction. Manipulating nature should not be taken so lightly. It's sad to see how willingly people turn over control of the entire food supply to corporate greed.

Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •