Talk:Gene patent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is where we can talk about the "Gene Patents" page at wikipedia.org

Contents

[edit] Removed Summary section

The section was both unnecessary, as the article was relatively short, and inappropriate, as it expressed a definite preferal on the subject of gene patents--something that wouldn't even be appropriate in a page specifically dedicated to the controversy, much less one dedicated to the general concepts of gene patents.

[edit] What have we narrowed our debate topic to?

What topic are we choosing? We need a specific topic...

Although the article presents an fairly unbiased approach to the topic, some of it is spoken in 1st/2nd person (...we are the primary source...) in the pro's section and the use of upper case words adds emotion, which in fact doesn't really have a place in an article about legal issues in modern genetics.

In addition, the last line of the 'pro' section ('it's critical that patents continue to be allowed...') implies emotion and unbiased approach. This article needs a cleanup. --Nushoin 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I can't believe this is considered an encyclopedic entry

Since when have wikipedia articles turned into a debate? If this were an article about the debate on gene patents, that would be one thing, but this is not.

Here we will be discussing the pros and cons of genetic treatment technology patenting

Is this something you see in the ecyclopedia? No. This is more like an essay than an article. There are no references, and no in depth look at what gene patents are. glocks out 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should have information on the genes patented till date and not the views of the world about patenting genes.US has patented more than 6000 genes till date .A list of these genes would make ideal content.I request anyone to please add the necessary information to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.138.69 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up...

I've made an attempt to clean up this article by basically starting from scratch.

I think it's rather easy to be biased on the subject when coming from any background. But all perspectives are welcome as long as you've referenced your sources!

-RT

[edit] "Next"

Ok, I'm no scientist, but I'm reading Crichton's newest book, "Next". In it he claims that the University of California holds more genetic patents than several major pharma companies combined. I tried to verify this on the internet and ended up here. It would help those of us with no background on this extremely compelx subject to know who is in on the money. I believe we are reaching a tipping point where the objectivity of supposedly unbiased research must be questioned. It is hilarious to me that the main criticisms of "State of Fear" were leveled at Crichton's criticism of the global warming proponents. That was not the thrust of the book! It was much more an indictment of a new and very powerful complex of supposed "non-profit" groups, universities, and other parties conventionally thought of as unbiased. I am as skeptical of claims from this bunch as I am of Exxon, et. al.

So, to make a long story short (too late, some would say) it would be useful to have a section on just who owns how many patents. The days of believing anything you hear or read have gone the way of 5 pound cellphones and 10 pound VCR cameras.

Thank you for your support,
Sarazen 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material

I took this out:

It is very difficult to separate the ethical, scientific and legal issues of patents on gene technologies and materials, because they often accompany one another in all sources of information.[citation needed]
  1. It intimates the issues could be sorted out easily if the sources were structured differently.
  2. In fact, it is a commonplace that science, ethics, and law are always and inherantly difficult to separate, because all three kinds of issue are deeply and inherantly involved with human intentions.
  3. The statement makes most sense as OR, attempting to explain its author's difficulty with the subject, and concluding the structure of the materials is to blame. If the editor (who wrote this sentence that i removed) wrote most of the rest (of the revision that i found and changed) of that 'graph, then they are a "poor workman blaming their tools". There are plenty of issues here. But whoever would baldly write
    denied John the rights to his own spleen.
    must be innocent of any awareness of how many ways "his own spleen" differs from "his own house": it is a matter of legal fact, and AFAIK essentially uncontested ethical consensus, that no one may sell parts of the body of a living person (whether that person is themself or another). Similarly, the tone suggests an editor who would expect that when a student is allowed to use a generous corporation's laboratory equipment, and by dumb luck stumbles on the basis for a patent, the patent goes to the corporation. (In fact, any claim by the corporation would have to rest on an explicit contract mentioning resulting intellectual property.) And in the case of such an editor, i see them as suffering, on the contrary, the consequences of bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

--Jerzy•t 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

We need to focus on the History of the gene patents and the legal and scientific milestones it achieves. The criticism and debate should not be the focus of this entry. glocks out 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I suggest to merge gene patents and biological patent. I am not sure however which title should prevail. Reason for the merge: major overlap/redundancy. --Edcolins (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was considering adding the idea of animal patents to this article, a controversial subject that warrants further discussion. Although those are technically gene patents in some sense of the word, that controversy centers around patenting discovered genes found in nature, especially humans. Animal patents center around inventions, not discoveries, especially through genetic manipulation.
I think we need a better way to discuss these distinct topics. While we could merge them, then distinguish between the two in the merged article, another approach would be to center one article around genetic creations and another around genetic discoveries, which maintaining two articles might allow. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)