Samples of Posts to the Newsgroup From: Shannon Subject: science, business, patents I subscribe to Vegetarian Times magazine and the articles concerning pesticides, organic foods, animal testing, biotechnology, etc. offer good basic information and often explore a view that differs from and challenges the scientific community and mainstream societies views. I am thankful for the opportunity to see these controversial issues from a more wholistic humanitarian basis, rather that the sometimes cold, analytical scientific perspective. Anyways... In the November 1995 issue there is an article on patenting animal (human) genes, cell lines and body parts. The opponents (ranging from environmental, legal, religious, science groups) deem such patenting as "immoral" and or "unconstitutional". For example, "Some legal scholars cite animal-human hybrids as a violation of the 13th Admendment, which forbids any grant of property rights over human beings"(p27). The religious view says "We believe that God, and not humans make genes: patenting makes claims for humans [on] what is really God's work"(p26). Some see biotechnology as going beyond science and into a realm directed by big business and government control. The 1980 patent law granted the W.R. Grace Corporation an exclusive patent until 2008 on genetically engineered cotton species. For $90 million, Amgen Inc. purchased the "obesity gene" (remember that whole issue?!). Those that support patenting justify the heavy financial component of biotechnology saying that big money can draw companies to take on extremely high risk opportunities. The example the article uses is of a Canadian company that patented genetically engineered cattle embryos to produce human milk! The benefits are obvious for lactose intolerant children of the third world. I have questions about these ethical issues themselves, as well as the ethical relationship between science and business. I wonder if big business and big money really provide the scientific community with opportunities to advance scientific discoveries? Or will profit dictate science somehow hindering or misdirecting it? I always felt that science is motivated by and pursued for the sake of scientific discovery itself. I might be naive. Honestly, I feel I lack enough quality information and discussion of this to formulate my own position. I just found the issue to be an interesting, multi-influenced controversy worth checking out...?? This is an example of a 10 point post, it introcduces several pieces of information and a couple of different arguments both pro and con, along with good citations of the sources for this. In addition, she describes her personal concerns with the issues. Jeff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sullivan Subject: Re: science, business, patents In the message I am writing in response to, I believe that we, as humans, have no right to patent genes and cell cultures of us or any other life forms on this earth. Where in the heck does anyone get off believing that we have this right? We are just a species sharing this planet with many other life forms. We should, however, be inquisitive as to the way things work in our world and we are intitled to research. Just my views. This would be a 3, the author clearly states his opinion but doesn't intorduce any new facts or arguments nor does he really address any of the arguments already introduced. This is better than just saying, "I agree with Shannon", which would be a zero. (This would count as a weekly post, however, it just wouldn't be a good choice as your best post of the semester). Jeff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Subject: Re: science, business, patents In response to Shannon's commentary on the relationship between science and business, I too have some reservations. In a ideal world, the funding for research projects would be doled out to "responsible and meaningful" projects. But, unfortunately we live in a less than ideal society where money talks. If a particular cause is backed by lots of money, you had better believe that it will be researched because PhD's like to eat too. In order for a lab to do research, they must have the money ( and lots of it) to purchase equipment, supplies and to support the researchers. A good example of this guided research is the intensive research efforts associated with tobacco. The tobacco industry has recognized that someday people might get smart and stop smoking cigarettes. It is in there best interest to find new ways to make tobacco important in our society. So, they have put lots of money into research grants for people who want to develop new ways to use tobacco plants---in industry, research, etc. While there are certainly more pressing scientific questions that need to be answered, the money to back the necessary research is just not available. If the money for research grants doesn't come from private corporations or interest groups, the only other major sources are the US government or the World Health Organization. These research topics will have to sit and wait until money (usually government $$) becomes available or a crisis erupts and forces the hand of our government. So, I think that while it is unfair that money guides the research efforts of the scientific community, it is our reality. We can't stop private industry from investing money in self-interest research and we can't force them to spend there money on other research topics. At the same time, the amount of money that the government it spending on research is not going to change based on how much privately funded research is being conducted. I think that the optimistic way to think about the situation,(I still acknowledge that it is unfair) is that this privately funded research is a bonus--it generates information that would not otherwise be known. This would be a 9, the author introduces a different way of looking at the issue and clearly states her views, but does not document her case, relying instead on "common knowledge". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Subject: Re: science, business, patents I also believe that there should be no patents placed on gene discoveries. It is ridicuous to patent all the genes. Isn't the goal of the discoveries is to understand and applied the knowledge to help human? Putting it this way, it's understandable why companies want to patent genes. These big businesses have an agenda on their minds, which is to make money. It is great for scientists in that greater knowledge are obtain. But for big businesses, who funds the research, it is their decisions to acquire patents and profit from it. It is sad, but a part of our society. This would be about a 5, like Sullivan's post it states an opinion but gives no support for that opinion not does it address any of the arguments discussed by the others. Bell CSU Chico Library This document is copyright of Jeff Bell Last Update: Monday, August 21, 2000