(no subject)
Jul. 27th, 2006 01:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brynndragonI just realized another side of the stem cell research (SCR) thing that makes me really pissed off: patents.
The current state of affairs is that stem cell research is happening and is privately funded. Sure, some portion of that is charity donation, but another chunk of it is venture capital or side projects in large pharma corps. Furthermore, since nothing bought with public funding can be used for SCR, it's really hard for someone who gets a lot of public funding (i.e. non-profit academic institutions) to, say, separate out the bill for lab space or pipettes or other common lab equipment. They have to spend the money to buy all new stuff and all new space just for SCR, *and* show that they're not paying for the water, electricity, etc used for SCR with public funds. That's pretty damn unlikely to occur - only places like Harvard are rich enough to be capable of doing that. So the vast majority of organizations that are doing it are for-profits.
Which leads to the obvious question: where's the profit? The long-term answers are obvious (I'm sure a cure for Parkinson's would make many someones very rich), but what about the short term? The way to make money is to patent everything they find about how to use stem cells for research and how to work on stem-cell-based treatment and license it out to others. They'll probably patent the stem cells and any cell lines they make from stem cells as well - if you think they'll end up in the ATCC bank, you're kidding yourself. These are the same people who have patented 20% of the human genome, they're not going to pass up the opportunity to be *the* owners of embryonic stem cell lines.
The next time someone talks about baby farming and/or calls SCR murder, find out who is lining their re-election coffers. I bet you'll see some big pharma names in there. . .
The current state of affairs is that stem cell research is happening and is privately funded. Sure, some portion of that is charity donation, but another chunk of it is venture capital or side projects in large pharma corps. Furthermore, since nothing bought with public funding can be used for SCR, it's really hard for someone who gets a lot of public funding (i.e. non-profit academic institutions) to, say, separate out the bill for lab space or pipettes or other common lab equipment. They have to spend the money to buy all new stuff and all new space just for SCR, *and* show that they're not paying for the water, electricity, etc used for SCR with public funds. That's pretty damn unlikely to occur - only places like Harvard are rich enough to be capable of doing that. So the vast majority of organizations that are doing it are for-profits.
Which leads to the obvious question: where's the profit? The long-term answers are obvious (I'm sure a cure for Parkinson's would make many someones very rich), but what about the short term? The way to make money is to patent everything they find about how to use stem cells for research and how to work on stem-cell-based treatment and license it out to others. They'll probably patent the stem cells and any cell lines they make from stem cells as well - if you think they'll end up in the ATCC bank, you're kidding yourself. These are the same people who have patented 20% of the human genome, they're not going to pass up the opportunity to be *the* owners of embryonic stem cell lines.
The next time someone talks about baby farming and/or calls SCR murder, find out who is lining their re-election coffers. I bet you'll see some big pharma names in there. . .
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:05 pm (UTC)I always wondered about that... now I know I can exist because I was born/created/whatever before the patent was granted, but do I have to license that 20% before I can have any more children? Or can I opt not to include those genes? Do we have an entire illegally pirating use of genes owned and patented by someone else? (not quite as silly as it may sound, we all ready have law suits regarding the "look and feel" of software, art, and published material, why not people... I can see it now, I'll sue because someone has a nose on thier face, when I patented the nose! )
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 05:30 pm (UTC)*i made this up...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:14 pm (UTC)The direction is very consistent with what I've seen from the Bush administration. That is, they have a strong preference for industry driven initiatives in the healthcare domain. (I have an insider's view of all this.) I think the political philosophy came first, followed by funding from grateful beneficiaries. Bush's religious/moral views are convenient, but not the primary driving function.
Why do I say "convenient"? He is a narrow- and simple-minded person. He's also intellectually lazy. If something can be presented to him in a way that is consistent with his viewpoint, then he buys-in and avoids the added work of making an actually informed decision. The power-behind-Bush people obviously know how to pander to they way he is.
The well-funded multinational businesses have already won this game. Dammit.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 09:20 pm (UTC)I sincerely hpoe that someone will come along shortly who isn't in the pockets of the rich. Maybe the Democrats will learn from their mistake last time around and run someone who has more than just deep pockets themselves. I suspect that differentiation is going to be key for Democratic victories, because the Republicans have basically won by running candidates that are extremely similar (to confuse the moderates) and then mobilizing the people who vote Republican out of hand.
heh...
Date: 2006-07-29 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 07:25 pm (UTC)I appreciate your insider's view point and encourage you to continue offering it.
Take care,
Guru
no subject
Date: 2006-07-27 10:29 pm (UTC)There no money in that.
Parkingsons, for instance. Where do you think the money is...
Curing the disease... that's a one shot thing. One treatment, or pill, or whatnot.
Treating the disease, however... now there's where the money is.
You have a captive audience. They buy the medications, or they degnerate.
It's like diabetes. There's no cure. But there's treatment.
And it's a huge moneymaker.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 02:39 pm (UTC)Prestige... or money?
A higher ideal, such as contributing to the sum of humn knowledge... or patents?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 04:20 am (UTC)Industry scientists have every incentive to keep their findings quiet.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-29 05:26 pm (UTC)