Este programa es sobre cómo hemos permitido que el 20% del ADN en nuestras células esté patentado, y sobre quiénes son los verdaderos dueños de nuestros genes.
* Michael A. Heller, Rebecca S. Eisenberg: Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, Mayo 1998.
* Michael Crichton: Who owns your Genes? NY Times, Febrero 2007.
* Michael Heller: The Gridlock Economy pp. 60-62 "Gene Fragments". Basic Books, 2008.
* Forbes blogs: A gene patent purely about greed. Marzo 2010.
* Genome Scientists: Gene Patents are Bad. Forbes, 2002. Comentario en MM.
"Impedir a otra empresa de biotecnología o farmacéutica que intente obtener una cura para una enfermedad realmente bloquea la investigación, y el público pierde," dijo Venter; y respecto a las fortunas gastadas en patentar genes: "Creo que sólo los abogados de patentes se enriquecen".
* Heidi Williams: Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. 2010. También en Techdirt: comentario por David Levine.
"Celera's IP led to reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development outcomes on the order of 30 percent. Celera's short-term IP thus appears to have had persistent negative effects on subsequent innovation relative to a counterfactual of Celera genes having always been in the public domain".
* ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer. CNN, Mayo 2009.
"Ravicher offered an analogy to describe the plaintiffs' argument, saying, 'It's like saying if someone removes your eyeball ... just because you remove the eyeball and wash it off, that doesn't make the eyeball patentable.' Now if they create another eyeball out of plastic or metal, then you can patent that.'"
* The Genomics Stock List
* Intro: Aba structure - Deep step via Magnatune
* Codes in the Clouds: Don't go awash in this digital landscape via RCRDLBL. Escuchar en Youtube. Página en Myspace.
* Breitbandkater: Stray Cats via Modularfield
* NPR: Court Rules Against Myriad Gene Patents. Abril 2010.
* ACLU: Liberate the Breast Cancer Genes. Mayo 2009.
* Dan Ravicher:Landmark Gene Patenting Case. Abril 2010.
* Who Owns You? 20% of the Genes in Your Body are Patented. Trailer de documental sobre el libro del mismo título por David Koepsel.
* Hitchens tears religion a new one in only 46 seconds. El contexto de esta grabación es la religión, y Hitchens ha hecho el mismo comentario como un argumento sobre por qué somos parcialmente racionales. Por ejemplo en God is not Great, Twelv ed. 2007. Página 8:
"... it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partially rational. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder."
* Ian Frazer, President of the Cancer Council Australia, statement against gene patents. Agosto 2009.
[1:00->1:24] "Patenting of gene sequences should not be allowed, because the patent system exists to protect inventions. The gene sequence itself is not an invention. If we allow the patenting of gene sequences, it will hinder the development of diagnostic tests, prevent or hinder research, and increase the cost of health care."
* FORA.TV: Obstacles to Unlocking the Human Genome. Mayo 2009.
[00:40->01:20 Linda Avey] "Now we are looking the advent of people having access to a lot of information across all of their genes. You can see, not too far in the future, when you won't be able to learn a lot about your genome. Because companies such as 23andme, we have to go and license every bit from all these different organisms and organizations. And a lot of them are universities, it is not all companies. A lot of universities did a landgrab and grabbed a lot of the intelectual property that was discovered through our tax dollars, which I also think is a little bit dubious. The problem will be that companies like 23andme won't be able to afford the costs of doing all that licensing. And we won't be able to gain access to a broad set of our information, because of that."
* David Koepsell Talks To Freedom Central, Delft, 1/4. Noviembre 2009.
"Watson was in charge of the human genome project in the US. It was an international effort. The ideas was to be able to map the human genome, so that we can develop cures and treatments for genetic diseases and what not. Watson, while he was head of the Human Genome Project, became aware a young researcher in one of the labs, Craig Venter, was interested in patenting genes as they found them. Some of the other people in the US version of the human genome project thought that was a pretty very good idea. And they started filing patents on human genes they discovered in the process of this publicly-founded human genome project. And Watson then spoke up about it and said: this can't happen. And then Watson was fired, from the Human Genome Project, by his boss."
* David Koepsell Talks To Freedom Central, Delft, 2/4. Noviembre 2009.
[04:10-04:55]"Things like the genome are commonly possesed by all of us, all at once. So when we talk about the human genome, we are talking about an object that exists in you and me, and everybody else in the world, all at once. And it is constantly changing, it is constantly evolving, it is not a static thing. And it is not the product of our intention, it is part of an evolutionary process that has been going on for millions of years among us and other creatures. And to think that somebody could somehow properly claim a portion of that thing, to the exclusion of others, is I think, insane. And so I argue that this is one of these things that can not be enclosed, that can not be owned. It is, what I call, a commons by necessity."
* Lori B. Andrews: Biobanking and Bioethics. Febrero 2007.
[~30:00-] "There is a very strong, 150 years worth of precedent saying, you are not suppose to patent laws of nature, or products of nature, because we want scientists to have this freely available as the building blocks for what research is. We find that 1 on 5 medical scientists in one survey delayed publication of their results in order to protect a patent. A recent 2006 survey about students in the life sciences ... who are finding that they can't have access to the basic information they need in order to learn to work in a particular area. And I think what's really interesting is that science is about hypothesis generation, and testing, and replication, where others replicate your work, but 28% of the life scientists say thay have been unable to replicate results in a study because they are not allowed to have access to the sequences."