Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought Pres. Clinton signed a law a while back making patenting human DNA null and void.
Is this the constitutional challenge of that law?
I thought this was settled years ago.
???
I remember hearing sometime back about a patent application that was "awarded" to a company, and then other companies were filing a dispute against the patent because they couldnt use the DNA in question.
That might not be the same case as this one though, but probably is.
I believe GMOs are called plants believe it or not. I also believe they are patented. Take the Mulligan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor
To clarify (according to the court's opinion): natural human DNA is not patentable - synthetic human DNA is patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
forgive my laziness for not reading the court decision, but does this ruling refer to human DNA exclusively?
From the court decision, as delivered by Justice Thomas:
"...we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring."
cDNA = "complimentary DNA."
That would include all plants and all animals. Only artificially created DNA (as in cDNA) may be patented.
I do not have that much of a problem with GM plants, but I draw the line at GM critters. It is one thing to make a plant more resistant to disease, but it is entirely different to make a critter bigger or grow faster.
For example, the GM Atlantic salmon are bigger than their natural cousins because they have been modified to grow all year long, instead of just during the Spring like natural salmon. They are also much less physically fit (soft, mushy flesh), and more susceptible to parasites and other diseases than their natural cousins.
That is why Alaska has banned not only farmed fish, but also GM fish. Alaska only sells wild, natural salmon. Accept no substitutes!
I do not have that much of a problem with GM plants, but I draw the line at GM critters. It is one thing to make a plant more resistant to disease, but it is entirely different to make a critter bigger or grow faster.
Does that include pigs that excrete less phosphorus or cows that expel less methane? Frankly depending on how you define genetic modification most domesticated animals would come under that heading.
Does that include pigs that excrete less phosphorus or cows that expel less methane? Frankly depending on how you define genetic modification most domesticated animals would come under that heading.
Yes, it includes any critter that has been genetically modified. Currently there are only GM salmon. There are no GM pigs, cattle, or chickens being sold. If there were, I would be hunting more often.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
