GM - Yes or No?

[Sandman]

The mosquito project sounds like a good idea; any weapon in the fight against malaria has to be worth a look.

GM food, thus far, has been fairly useless. Most of the world's hungry people are hungry due to lack of money, rather than lack of food, and overproduction and obesity are becoming bigger problems anyway.

The grasping, rent-seeking behaviour of Monsanto hardly inspires confidence. I'd scrap gene copyrighting and leave the research up to organisations with no interest in profit. It's not a surprise that the mosquito project was developed by a university.

[Kuciwalker]

The grasping, rent-seeking behaviour of Monsanto hardly inspires confidence. I'd scrap gene copyrighting and leave the research up to organisations with no interest in profit.

Say goodbye to a lot of very expensive research then. And you can't copyright genes; you can sort of patent them.

It's not a surprise that the mosquito project was developed by a university.

Universities have an interest in profit too - they make plenty of money licensing patents.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Say goodbye to a lot of very expensive research then. And you can't copyright genes; you can sort of patent them.

Big deal. I don't see it as a given that this research will result in anything worthwhile. Most likely it will be tailored to generate more rent-seeking opportunities. It's awful to allow them to indulge in anti-social behaviour on the off chance that the money that it's helping them rake in will pay for something good.

Universities have an interest in profit too - they make plenty of money licensing patents.

And they can save it by not forking out royalties. This particular project was funded by government and charity money, unsurprisingly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Big deal. I don't see it as a given that this research will result in anything worthwhile.

Since when has it been a good idea to write off an entire area of research - one that has already produced results - as worthless? Do you see how absurd it is to claim that no private sector biotech research has produced worthwhile results?

As an example of how absurd your claim is: one of the most important advances in genetics, the invention of PCR, was invented by a private corporation and patented. PCR is the process by which we replicate DNA in the lab; without it the vast majority of current research would be impossible.

Most likely it will be tailored to generate more rent-seeking opportunities. It's awful to allow them to indulge in anti-social behaviour on the off chance that the money that it's helping them rake in will pay for something good.

No one would pay the rent if it wasn't a better deal than they were getting previously.

And they can save it by not forking out royalties.

How much do you think universities pay to Monsanto for GM seed? the royalties universities pay are usually for things that are and should be patentable anyway (real processes, not "genes") or goes directly to funding the R&D that lets them do R&D. Or will completely annihilating private sector biotech R&D somehow accelerate the pace of research?

[Perfection]

If we allow GM crops it's only a small step before we allow forced genetic modifications of all children to make them obediant to the coorperations!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Perfection
If we allow GM crops it's only a small step before we allow forced genetic modifications of all children to make them obediant to the corporations!

!!! I had better oppose GM crops, then!

[Colonâ„¢]

GM

Toyota

[LordShiva]

It's about time someone made that joke.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Since when has it been a good idea to write off an entire area of research - one that has already produced results - as worthless? Do you see how absurd it is to claim that no private sector biotech research has produced worthwhile results?

You're completely misrepresenting me here. Did I say that all patents in biotech should be scrapped? No. Did I say that no biotech company has ever produced anything worthwhile? No. Did I write off an entire area of research? No, I specifically said that the GM mosquito was a good idea. Scrapping gene patents doesn't necessarily entail scrapping all patents. If companies refocus their efforts on creating actual products rather than hoarding genetic patents, so much the better.

No one would pay the rent if it wasn't a better deal than they were getting previously.

What, like that farmer that Monsanto demanded money from when his crop was pollinated by their stuff?

How much do you think universities pay to Monsanto for GM seed? the royalties universities pay are usually for things that are and should be patentable anyway (real processes, not "genes") or goes directly to funding the R&D that lets them do R&D. Or will completely annihilating private sector biotech R&D somehow accelerate the pace of research?

I don't believe that private sector research will be 'completely annihilated' by being unable to patent genes. It has, however, been suggested that too many property rights will ****** research due to the fragmentation involved. Taking 'golden rice' as an example, it required seventy different patents etc to be waived in order to be created. Getting the agreement was presumably expensive and complicated, moreso if any of the companies involved had wanted payment. Add to that the nice collary for golden rice, which is that if a third world farmer makes too much money from it, they have to start paying the patent-holder.

[Kuciwalker]

You're completely misrepresenting me here. Did I say that all patents in biotech should be scrapped? No. Did I say that no biotech company has ever produced anything worthwhile? No. Did I write off an entire area of research? No, I specifically said that the GM mosquito was a good idea. Scrapping gene patents doesn't necessarily entail scrapping all patents. If companies refocus their efforts on creating actual products rather than hoarding genetic patents, so much the better.

Why do you think they don't create actual products? Monsanto makes plenty of money selling actual products. Pharmaceutical companies too.

What, like that farmer that Monsanto demanded money from when his crop was pollinated by their stuff?

I'm not familiar with that case - I'd have to see details about it. It does sound familiar.

I don't believe that private sector research will be 'completely annihilated' by being unable to patent genes.

Finding genes that do things is one of the major steps in developing many drugs or developing new strains of crops.

It has, however, been suggested that too many property rights will ****** research due to the fragmentation involved. Taking 'golden rice' as an example, it required seventy different patents etc to be waived in order to be created. Getting the agreement was presumably expensive and complicated, moreso if any of the companies involved had wanted payment.

There are probably hundreds or thousands of patents (some expired, some not) on the various parts of your car. Ditto your PC. Ditto any complex invention. Why is it just bad for biotech?

Add to that the nice collary for golden rice, which is that if a third world farmer makes too much money from it, they have to start paying the patent-holder.

What?

[DanS]

Roundup-Ready seeds (especially soybeans) must be a great benefit to farmers, since the uptake was so fast across the board with all types of farmers -- everybody from your family farm to large agribusinesses. There's nothing wrong with bringing home a fat paycheck, if you're creating value. That is, unless you're a communist, in which case it's tough to have any interesting discussion about this.

Glyphosate itself is no longer under patent and is sold by many generic producers. Because of this, Roundup-Ready seeds allow you to apply more but cheaper glyphosate. It's not a case of Monsanto double-dipping, for instance.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Sandman
What, like that farmer that Monsanto demanded money from when his crop was pollinated by their stuff?

To be honest, it's a pretty worthless conversation you're having here. For one, I think those cases were dismissed. Also, you're talking about marginal cases. On the whole, farmers use Roundup-Ready seeds because they are useful.

[DanS]

.

[RGBVideo]

Wow, "serious concerns" again.

There was a time when GM was brand-new, suspicious technology which needed to be further researched and tested so it would not have some (not very likely but) potentially catastrophic consequences when widely grown.

That time was in the 1980s. There has been absolutely no concrete evidence against GM crops, just unspecified "concerns" proved wrong in a matter of months when broadly investigated by scientists.

A whole generation has already consumed GM foods in the US. It's time to face reality and start eating more efficiently grown food in Europe, too.

[RGBVideo]

As a sidenote, it's amusing to see how Kuci manages to make an idiot out of himself with his loud-mouthed ignorance even in tech-oriented threads now.