2009 Nobel Ribosome Structures — Patented 168
tabascoj writes 'The announcement of this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry is the latest reminder that fundamental components of biology are being increasingly, and aggressively, patented. A commentary, from yalepatents.org, focuses on the research and subsequent patents, held by Yale and Thomas Steitz, one of this year's laureates.'
How is this ethical? (Score:3, Interesting)
Answers to the Article's conclussion: (Score:5, Interesting)
But should research so fundamental to life, such as the ribosome structure, be locked up for commercial gainâ"like Dynamite? Should a private institution, such as Yale, have the only say over how ribosomes may be developed into new biomedical technologies?
No, research should never be locked up. The patent system should evolve to the point where laymen with appropriate field knowledge and the right tools can copy ANY patented technique.
Yes, Yale absolutely has a right to decide what they do with their patent. If they sit on it, that's fine. There are other methods of doing what they learned to do. If the license it, that's fine too. Giving businesses the ability to benefit from their basic research is a good thing.
If Yale accumulates a big enough patent portfolio and tampers with the free market, they should be subject to government investigations and penalties. But in the case of Yale... they'll license to patent to bring in money to fund more fundamental research to future Yale scientists can advance the state of the art even further.
If the author really wants to attack stupid biological patents, he should investigate (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the biggest offender is) Monsanto.
Michael Crichton (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They should strip the Nobels.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then strip the prize money from the award too.
Anyway, what would stop a pharmecutical from taking the method, getting their own patent for it and suing other people who use it into oblivion? In a utopia, you might have a point, but I'd rather Yale hold these patents than Merck, Pfizer or GlaxoSmithKline.
Re:Misleading Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
The article is very light on details, unfortunatly. I was personally hoping for a layman's description of what the patents constituted but instead it felt I was just reading an anti-patent tirade. But what was overlooked in the article is that they didn't patent ribosomes (which it sounded like what the author was trying to imply), but they patented a method for analyzing their structure.
The irony is this could be one of the best cases FOR having patents. Yale spends millions on research, makes a breakthrough, licences it out to Big Pharma and as a result Yale is able to get funding for more research.
I just wish there was more detail on the patents themselves rather than someone arguing against patents in general to make a better determination on how evil, to use the local patent buzzword, these patents actually are.
Re:How is this ethical? (Score:3, Interesting)
No capitalism doesn't work FOR humanity's best interests, however that doesn't mean their work doesn't further the advances of humanity.
Thinking of some of the greatest inventions of last century, the light-bulb or automobile. Both were made by great inventors, both drastically changed the world, both were made with profits in mind, and both had patents on their inventions.
Anyone who thinks that its wrong to make money for advanced research should get a clue on how the world works.
The same can be said for anyone who instantly assumes that all patents should be worthless.
Re:license fee? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Eat your vegetables, or I won't pay your license fee, and Monsanto will come to take you away!"
Imagine their horror when they grow up and find out that, indeed, the boogeyman from their youth does really exist :-)