Comments on: Scientists to EU Court: Patents on Stem Cells Must Be Allowed

By: ihatrq baier

ihatrq baier — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:30 +0000

foundgreat ammount ofwillhave the same opinionwith your blog.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 02 May 2011 12:19:37 +0000

How about understanding intellectual monopoly better before blindly reposting nonsense?

Try e.g. “Against Intellectual Monopoly” by Levine and Boldrin.

By: PhDinTheProcess

PhDinTheProcess — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:21:56 +0000

I understand and agree to a certain degree with @pheldspat, BUT there is an unfortunate truth in science, both in industry and in the “research-pure ivory tower” of academia: there is no science if there is no funding… unless maybe you are independently wealthy. Limiting the ability to patent is regrettably going to limit our ability to find funding outside of governmental entities, which, anyone in research knows, is a grab-bite-and-scratch application process. Preventing the patenting of these technologies is only going to limit the extent to which we are able to go….

By: Dylan

Dylan — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:13:36 +0000

The problem with patenting living things can be seen with Monsanto. Famously suing farms for genetically altered seeds (blowing out of monsanto trucks and are genetically superior so they are able to grow in more places than local seed) growing in their fields, putting thousands of farmers through litigation and trials. Unlawful.

By: Templar 7

Templar 7 — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:49:12 +0000

Pheldespat…you seem to make sense. And, that old theory of :” the only way to get funding is to have the financial assurance of a patent.” is a thing of the past, peoples. Here’s a few thoughts:

1) It’s illegal to harvest kidneys and other organs from unsuspecting human victims, yet look at the black market involved in Organ Theft, and the selling of organs. I believe it is one of the fastest growing forms of mafia crime, if not the fastest. A patent only works if you recognize and respect the law.

2) Look at all of the “name-brand” pharmeceuticals seeking their ways onto American Shelves, if not the whole worlds.

3) Wake up. America already led this precident judically for the world in 2001 when The Supreme Court said that no persons can patent anything using hESC’s or the Human Genome. In law, tendencies are to follow suit.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:06:47 +0000

Patent a process, fine. Patent a biological entity, no.

By: pheldespat

pheldespat — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:29:46 +0000

Sure, let’s mix hESCs with patents. What could possibly go wrong?

“Scientists working in stem-cell medicine will not be able to deliver clinical benefits without the involvement of biological industry.”

Why would that be so?

This is simply the industry lobbying through the scientists. We don’t need no stinking patents for hESCs! If hESCs and patents do interbreed, I’ll hold the signing scientists personally responsible for such a chimera. There are certain realms where science and scientists should not dare venture, and patenting hESCs techniques is one of them. And for the record, the problem lies with the patents, not with the hESCs being embryo-derived.