decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
splicing genes together | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
splicing genes together
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:46 PM EDT
Just a nitpick. GM is transplanting a gene from one organism to another, which
doesn't quite fit into the way I read the phrase 'splicing genes together.' The
sentence came across to me as if it referred to splicing two genes to make a new
one. 'Genetic insertion,' as in inserting a gene into a DNA strand, might be
more technically accurate.

The genes that are being spliced into DNA strands are not new; they have been
around since long before we had the ability to use stone tools, much less the
ability to create such a messed-up patent system. These genes are, in effect,
software. Granted, DNA is in base 4 with a 3-bit byte, but it's still software.
And the genes Monsanto is moving around certainly predate their patent filing.

If we are going to allow patents like this, I could see patenting new technology
for transplanting genes, but not a gene that has already been in existence for
eons.

As for the safety issues, even though a genetic modification puts the change
right where it is needed, organisms reproduce. We might, for example, have a
plant generate its own pesticide, and that could eliminate the need to spray or
dust. However, nature makes some real nasties, so we need care and scrutiny
when moving genes around. I wouldn't give a second thought to eating corn that
is glyphosphate resistant through GM (one of Monsanto's current pushes), but I
would avoid any crop GM'd to synthesize its own pesticide. At least, I would
avoid anything with a transplanted toxin gene without knowing that the toxin and
organism had not undergone years of intense, thorough, and intensely through
study.

I don't think that the organisms should be patentable, though. For one, this is
software, even if the digital mechansim is organic. For another thing, the
software is its own prior art, if the concept of prior art is to have any
validity. Once more, though, this is an organism, and it is purchased as such.
Fully-functional organisms reproduce, and plant seeds are not fixed to one
location. Especially on a farm, where tens of thousands of plants are grown at
one location, seeds can migrate. Let's say a handful of seed left on one truck
finds its way into the stock at another farm. Can Monsanto then sue without
even having to prove intent?

As for the scrutiny, I fear that our agricultural apparatus is using the
pesticide model, which isn't really applicable. Transplanting special compound
synthesis genes does need the same type of screening as for a pesticide, albeit
with attention to the added concern that the organism can reproduce. If a
synthetic turns out to be unacceptable, we can just stop production, but
nonsterile organisms are a different matter. Plants no doubt have potential to
make many medicinal compounds that we can't but I think (HOPE) that such plants
would only be growin with stringent barriers between the growth area and the
environment at large. A professor once made medicine very clear when he noted
that medicine is fundamentally about toxicology, particularly with attention to
poisoning an organism rather than the host.

For GM crops like those Monsanto is developing, a different oversight mode is
required. Drought resistance is a great idea, particularly for drought-prone
regions, but only as long as the cure doesn't become a worse problem. Potential
environmental impact assessment has to take into account how the organism could
affect the ecological balance. Drought-resistance to make a crop grow a normal
farm type crop under adverse conditions is good, unless the crop becomes so
hearty that it takes over to destroy the local ecology.

Sorry for the overlong ramble, but this topic does tend to have me thinking a
lot. As with many new technologies, the potential to do good definitely comes
with a potential to do harm.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )