Controversy Surrounding GMO Patents: Examining the Ethical Implications

  • Thread starter Thread starter dgtech
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ethical implications of patenting genetically modified organisms (GMOs), exploring the validity and consequences of intellectual property claims in the context of genetic modification. Participants examine the intersection of law, ethics, and biological diversity, with a focus on the practices of companies like Monsanto.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that patenting GMOs is absurd, comparing it to claiming intellectual property over a modified literary work.
  • Others propose that modifying an organism involves significant changes that could warrant patent protection, likening it to engineering innovations.
  • Concerns are raised about the ecological impact of sterile GMOs and their ability to pollinate natural species, potentially threatening biodiversity.
  • Participants discuss the legal framework surrounding GMO patents, questioning whether the organism, the process of modification, or the specific genes are patented.
  • Some participants highlight the exploitation of patent laws by GMO producers, suggesting that they benefit from legal loopholes without sufficient regulatory restraint.
  • There is mention of the regulatory oversight by agencies like the EPA, USDA, and FDA, with some arguing that GMO foods undergo more rigorous testing than other food products.
  • References are made to the concept of modifying existing works, with examples provided to illustrate how adaptations can lead to new copyrights.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the ethics and legality of GMO patents, with no consensus reached on the validity of patenting practices or the implications for biodiversity and legal accountability.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the nature of genetic modification, the legal definitions of patents versus copyrights, and the ecological consequences of GMO practices, which remain unresolved.

dgtech
Messages
70
Reaction score
1
How should patenting a GMO be even a viable option? Claiming intellectual property over something you just modified seems absurd. Following that logic I could just rewrite a few lines of Hamlet and claim it as my intellectual property instead of Shakespeare's
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Modified, in this context, means taking a Boeing 747 and inserting the genes from an another aircraft to give it the ability to hover or take-off vertically - that's patentable.
 
So if I change Hamlet to a different outcome I can patent/copyright it as my own, despite I only modified a tiny fraction of it?

What about the fact companies like Monsanto produce GMOs that are sterile, but still can pollinate natural species over great distances, which is a threat to the natural biological diversity, plus they use this plague like tactic to infect natural crops and then unleash their lawyers with accusations farmers are illegally growing their crops, putting them out of business, instead of paying them compensation for contaminating their crops with strains that are sterile and pose health risks?
 
I didn't say it was a good thing - I just said that GMO wasn't simply shuffling genes that already exist in the organism.
Plays aren't patented they are copyrighted - but yes you could modify and exiisting play to add new elements and copyright that new work.
 
And there are no laws against such dangerous activity? GMO producers don't seem to be restrained by the law, they only seem to benefit from exploiting it...
 
Is it the organism per se that's patented? Or the process to modify it?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Is it the organism per se that's patented? Or the process to modify it?

Both, for a crop you can patent the new combination of genes - since they never existedin that form before you created them

A rather more dubious patent is for disease genes in humans, you can't patent the gene - since your parents 'invented' it and you can't patent it's operation or presence. So the companies patent the idea of a genetic test to discover disease X by looking at gene Y.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Is it the organism per se that's patented? Or the process to modify it?

I'd say it's the actual gene that has been patented, so every organism containing it can be viewed as a patent violation.
 
dgtech said:
So if I change Hamlet to a different outcome I can patent/copyright it as my own, despite I only modified a tiny fraction of it?

See Pride, Predjudice, and Zombies. The author took the text from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, modified it, and now holds the copyright to his modified version.

What about the fact companies like Monsanto produce GMOs that are sterile, but still can pollinate natural species over great distances, which is a threat to the natural biological diversity, plus they use this plague like tactic to infect natural crops and then unleash their lawyers with accusations farmers are illegally growing their crops, putting them out of business, instead of paying them compensation for contaminating their crops with strains that are sterile and pose health risks?

Monsanto considered modifying their GMOs to be sterile, but ultimately decided against doing so because of harsh popular opinion against such measures (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology). If Monsanto had modified their GMOs to be sterile, we would presumably have less problems with GMO pollen cross-breeding with conventional strains in nearby fields.


And there are no laws against such dangerous activity? GMO producers don't seem to be restrained by the law, they only seem to benefit from exploiting it...

There certainly are many laws that regulate GMO producers, and they are overseen by many government agencies including the EPA, USDA, and FDA. GMO foods undergo much more stringent testing than any other food on the market. There are certainly laws on the patent side of things that biotech companies exploit, but what company doesn't exploit our patent system for profit (see software companies, "patent troll" companies, pharmaceuticals, etc)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K