Perlegen Sciences. Avey also spent time at Spotfire helping scientists understand the power of data visualization and at Applied Biosystems during the early days of the human genome project. The advent of high density genome-wide scanning technologies brought huge potential for significant discoveries. However, the lack of sufficient funding to enable adequate studies prompted Avey to think of a new research model. These ideas led to the formation of 23andMe. Her primary interest is the …
25 Responses to “Obstacles to Unlocking the Human Genome”
Leave a Reply
May 29th, 2009 at 5:05 am
“I can’t believe the legal system was set up to even allow patents on the human genome. I feel like throwing up and I’ll be damned if this situation stays in place for long.”
I couldn’t agree more. It should be challenged in court.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
David Magnus gives away the whole bluff of the geneticists when he states”… we don’t understand it”
They can patent every gene they want because every gene can mutate into a new and “private” entity.
What they can’t patent is the impulse that causes peptides to attach to receptors which create unwanted genetic mutations
May 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“I can’t believe the legal system was set up to even allow patents on the human genome.”
Well, there is some reason behind it. It takes a lot of money and effort to sequence a genome, and it takes even more money and effort to determine the use of an individual gene. Allowing patents incentivizes the research.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
What does patenting a gene do? How can you patent something that nature invented? This makes no sense.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
How can the genome be patented? God invented it.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“What does patenting a gene do? How can you patent something that nature invented?”
People patent nature’s inventions all the time; it simply means that only the patent holder can research or manipulate the invention. For example; let’s say a particular gene causes a particular cancer. Only the company who discovers this can research how to turn the gene off, and any medicine designed to do so will belong to that company–or to whoever they sell the patent to.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
But a patent can also be for information that is unknown, the laws mth and science wheren’t always common knowledge they started as an Idea
May 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Are there no ethics in medicine anymore?Is it now only dirty money grubbing?
Seems to me that those genes belong to the people they took them from.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yes, research done largely with public money, hence the outrage.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
hahahhaha
May 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“God invented it. ”
Go back to school.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I’m saying it doesn’t belong to anyone. Care to explain your answer?
May 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
So is the patent permission for them to keep the information a secret?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“Yes, research done largely with public money, hence the outrage.”
Well, yes, but it isn’t just being done with public money. A lot of companies do private research, and universities are mixed funding.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“So is the patent permission for them to keep the information a secret?”
No, patents by law require you to make the information publicly available. It simply means that the government will defend your right to use the information as you see fit, exclusively, for the next 20 years.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
So what. We don’t allow radio stations to own a radio bandwidth, we make them lease it, because it is a public resource. Same goes for the very thing that makes us human. If you want to develop a procedure or new gene therapy then that’s different. The genome itself it s public resource.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Krishna invented it.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
“We don’t allow radio stations to own a radio bandwidth, we make them lease it, because it is a public resource.”
The obvious difference here is that it doesn’t really cost a company anything to develop a bandwidth for use. It does cost companies significantly to determine what genes do. I think there would be a problem if companies spent millions developing a bandwidth for use only to have another company use the bandwidth for itself.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
This is a flawed argument. A genome exists objectively objectively, same goes with radio bandwidth. Both are natural resources.
Secondly, it doesn’t cost a company any money to develop a radio bandwidth for use? Are you serious? How much money is a transmitting tower and staff these days…
Additionally proprietary information actually reduces overall research effectiveness because it necessarily limits information sharing.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Krishna, God, Allah, same thing, different names. You say tomato…
May 30th, 2009 at 12:48 am
I was joking of course. It’s quite clear it developed from a natural process. Hence the go back to school comment.
And no those aren’t all the same thing, sorry.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:55 am
God is a synonym for natural processes in my book.
May 30th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Suit yourself.
May 30th, 2009 at 1:05 am
“…transmitting tower…”
Transmitting towers can freely be changed between frequencies; a company that spends money researching a gene can’t just switch to another gene if another company takes over that one.
“…proprietary information actually reduces overall research…”
The opposite argument could and has been made, that funding is more important in these projects than information sharing. I don’t think there’s any definitive evidence for either side.
May 30th, 2009 at 1:08 am
“…radio bandwidth…”
Hold on, I just had one of those “face-palm” moments.
A patent is, effectively, nothing but a lease on an intellectual property. Doesn’t your analogy support my side better? I mean, the government is basically ‘leasng’ a gene to a company for a certain amount of time, as a reward for investing in said gene, much like it leases radio bandwidth to radio companies for money.