[trekky1700]

I think this is bad, not because I don't like open source other things, but the patenting and commercialization of genes is something that we cannot permit. Establishing the difference between regular seeds and open source seeds is a step in the wrong direction, as there should never be a time that that distinction is necessary.

[Houshalter]

Why? If a company can make a better crop, they should be allowed to commercialize it and make money off it. No one should be forced to pay for patented crops (which is somewhat of an issue in some cases due to cross contamination), but otherwise I don't see what the benefit is in banning private research.

[trekky1700]

I definitely don't propose we ban research. Genetic modification is the future in many areas. But patenting the genes and being allowed to restrict the use of organisms containing those genes is lunacy. Especially at this point, where genetic code isn't actually being created, so much as it's being taken from on species and spliced into another. The equivalent of me taking paragraphs from different books, putting them into sections of another book, and claiming it to be my original work.

We live in a world where doctors can withhold the information on a patients death during a gene therapy treatment due to the genes being proprietary information. There have even been cases were doctors have patented specific genetic information from their patients, unbehest to them during treatments.

It's all a fine, fine line.

[chmike]

The assumption that a company can make a "better crop" is naive. There is nothing like a "better crop". It may be better about some features. What is underestimated is that it may have introduced regression on others yet unnoticed or disregarded. Bioengineering is very complex and currently based on trial and error. It's not yet true engineering.

Transpose this to software development. Is a modified program correct and without regressions because it "works" ? Until we don't fully understand how all the biochemestry works it's like changing the software code in semi random ways and see if something "better" comes out of it. What fool would do that in software engineering ?

[Houshalter]

If it wasn't "better" than farmers wouldn't buy it/use it. Maybe it's quality is debatable but then they are free to debate and decide.

None of that has anything to do with patents.

[chmike]

It can be a better look to be bought and decrease the taste quality. Very frequent in todays vegetables found on hypermarkets.