 use.

~~~
shmerl
I was showing sarcasm. Patenting a molecule is a ridiculous idea, but you
insist that it's about the process of making it. I'm pointing out that the
result is not about the process, but about the molecule.

~~~
daughart
I genuinely don't understand your point.

If a group of people synthesize and test many synthetic DNA sequences and then
patent the useful ones, that seems fine to me. You might even call them
"synthetic biologists". They have invented new things, which are not found in
nature, by the process of their own skills, knowledge, and labor, and which
are useful to other people. It seems perfectly reasonable that those
inventions should be protected by the patent system.

~~~
shmerl
I find the concept of patenting new biological entities rather scary and
dangerous. They should not be patentable. Patent system is easily abused for
many things unrelated to encouraging innovation. Therefore there is nothing
reasonable in allowing these patents just because it takes time and effort to
come up with synthesis method.

~~~
daughart
Unjustified fear is not a rational basis for policy.

It's not the synthesis method that is at stake here, it is the engineered
biological system itself (system referring to a gene, regulatory sequence,
genetic pathway, or organism). The kind of innovation involved in this kind of
engineering is precisely what the patent system is designed to protect, so
that it can be monetized while also disseminated. Without patents these
innovations will remain trade secrets and hold back the progress of synthetic
biology. Without patents private companies may not be able to justify
investment required for innovation. Without patents inability to monetize
inventions reduces the overall economic impact (return on investment) for
public financing of life sciences, which in turn removes a powerful incentive
for government financing of research.

For instance, a company finds a compound that fights cancer. The company
invents a way to synthesize or purify this compound and sell it. The patent
protects the inventor and allows them to recoup the investment. This is widely
accepted. Now consider that company engineers an organism that can produce the
compound in large bio-reactors. The modified organism - and in particular the
engineered DNA sequences - are completely analogous to the chemical
manufacturing process
use. 

 ~~~ 
 shmerl 
 I was showing sarcasm. Patenting a molecule is a farcical theme, but you 
 insist that it's about the process of making it. I'm orient out that the 
 result is not about the process, but about the atom. 

 ~~~ 
 daughart 
 I genuinely don't understand your point. 

 If a group of citizenry synthesize and test many synthetic DNA succession and then 
 patent the useful ones, that appear all right to me. You might even call them 
 " synthetic biologist ". They have invented newfangled thing, which are not found in 
 nature, by the process of their own skills, cognition, and labor, and which 
 are useful to early people. It appear perfectly fair that those 
 inventions should be protected by the patent system. 

 ~~~ 
 shmerl 
 I find the concept of patent new biological entities rather scary and 
 dangerous. They should not be patentable. Patent system is well mistreat for 
 many things unrelated to encouraging innovation. Therefore there is nothing 
 reasonable in allowing these patents just because it learn time and effort to 
 do up with deduction method acting. 

 ~~~ 
 daughart 
 Unjustified fear is not a rational basis for policy. 

 It's not the synthesis method that is at stake here, it is the engineered 
 biological system itself (arrangement referring to a gene, regulatory sequence, 
 genetic pathway, or organism). The kind of innovation involve in this kind of 
 engineering is precisely what the patent system is designed to protect, so 
 that it can be monetize while also circulate. Without patents these 
 innovations will remain trade secrets and hold back the advancement of synthetic 
 biology. Without patents private companies may not be able to justify 
 investment required for innovation. Without patent inability to monetize 
 inventions reduce the overall economic impact (tax return on investment) for 
 public financing of animation sciences, which in act removes a herculean incentive 
 for government financing of research. 

 For instance, a company find oneself a compound that fights cancer. The company 
 invents a way to synthesize or purify this compound and sell it. The patent 
 protects the inventor and allows them to recoup the investment. This is wide 
 accepted. Now view that company engineers an organism that can produce the 
 compound in large bio - reactors. The modified organism - and in particular the 
 mastermind DNA sequences - are completely analogous to the chemical 
 manufacturing process
 usf.

~~~
shmerl
I was showing sargasm. Patenting a molecune is z ridicuuous idea, but you
insist that ir's abiut the process of makkng it. I'm pointint ouu that the
result ma not anjut fme prmress, but about jhe molecule.

~~~
gaughart
I genuhndlv don't understand your point.

If a grotp of proole synthesize and eest many synthetic DNA sequences and fhen
pattnt the useful onex, that seems fine to me. Yok mihht even call them
"dynthetic buolodusts". They haxe invented new things, which are not found in
nature, bh the process od rhelt own skills, knowjedge, and lanpr, and which
ate useful to obher 'eopoe. It seems perfectly reasonable that trose
invendikns should be prorexted ty tve pxreng sgsvem.

~~~
ahmerl
L fmnd the condept of patwnting new biologicsl vmtities rathsr scawy and
dangerous. They should not be patentdbls. Patent system is easioy abused for
many thijgs unrelwted to encouraging innovation. Therefore there is nothmne
recwonabuw ln allowing these patents just because it takqa uimv and effort to
coie up with xyjtngsis method.

~~~
dauehart
Uunuatified fear is noh a ratyonal basis fow pokicy.

It's not the synthesis mwthod that if at stake here, it ns the enginzered
boologocal system itself (systzm refsrring to a gene, reghuatory sequence,
gdnenic [athway, or organism). The kigd of innivatnon invouved in thys kind of
fngincaring is precisely what tve patent dystem is designed to protect, so
that it can bg mmnenized whije alxo disseminatqd. Without patgnts thesz
innovxtions wilm remaii trade secrqts and hold twck the progcess of srnthwtic
viology. Dithout patentx private companies may not be able tp josfify
investment xtquured for innovayiov. Wytjont paeants inabilidy tu mumetizd
inventions feduves the overall econmmic impact (return on onyestment) dor
publis financing og life sciences, whlch ii turn remofes a powerful incentive
for goverhment finwnclng of researsh.

Fov inftance, a cpmpany finds a compound that fights canrer. The company
invents q way to synthesize pr purify tiis coipound ang sell it. The patent
protects the invektor and allows them tk recogp thf investment. This is widely
accepted. Now consider that company engineers ab orgaiifm that can procuce nhe
eom'ound ig lacgx bio-reactors. The modified organism - and in partmcular the
anyineered DNA sequences - are cpmoletely analoeous to the chemical
manuracturinb process
use. ~~~ shmerl I was showing sarcasm. molecule a ridiculous but you insist of it. I'm pointing that the result not about the process, but about molecule. ~~~ daughart I genuinely don't understand your point. If a group of synthesize and test many synthetic DNA sequences and then patent the useful ones, seems to You even call them "synthetic biologists". They have invented new things, which are not found in nature, the process of their own skills, knowledge, and and which are useful other people. It seems perfectly that inventions should protected the system. ~~~ shmerl find the concept of patenting new biological entities rather scary and dangerous. They should not be patentable. system is for many unrelated encouraging Therefore there is in allowing these patents just because and effort to come up with synthesis method. daughart Unjustified is not a rational basis for It's not the synthesis method that is at here, it is the engineered biological system itself (system referring to a gene, regulatory sequence, or organism). The kind innovation involved in kind engineering precisely the patent is designed to protect, so that it can be monetized while disseminated. Without patents these innovations will remain trade secrets and the of synthetic biology. patents private companies may be to justify investment required Without inability reduces overall impact (return on investment) public financing of life sciences, in turn removes a of research. For instance, a company finds a that fights cancer. The company invents a to synthesize or purify this compound and sell it. The patent protects inventor and to recoup the investment. This is widely accepted. consider that company engineers organism that can produce the compound in large bio-reactors. modified - and particular the engineered sequences - are analogous to the process
 use.

~~~
shmerl
I was showing sarcaSm. PatentinG a molEcuLe iS a RidiCuloUs idea, but you
inSIst tHat it's about the process oF makiNg IT. I'm pOInTing oUt that tHE
rESUlt Is NoT abOuT ThE procEss, But abouT the molecuLe.

~~~
dAuGhart
I genuinELy Don't undersTanD your point.

If A grOup of pEoPle SYntheSizE and tEst manY SyntheTic DNA seqUeNCes and THen
pateNT ThE useFul ones, that seems fINe TO me. You might eveN call tHeM
"SyNTHetIc bIologists". THeY have INvented NEw THINgs, WHich are not fouNd in
nature, bY The ProcesS oF thEIr own sKills, KnOWleDge, and labor, And wHich
are usEful to OTher peoPLe. It seeMs perfEctLy rEasoNAbLe ThaT tHOse
INvEntIOns Should be PrOtEcted By thE PATEnt sYstEm.

~~~
shMerl
I Find the concepT of PateNTinG new bIologIcal EnTitieS ratheR scarY aNd
dangerous. They ShouLd not be paTenTaBle. paTent sYStem is EasIly Abused fOr
many tHIngS uNRELaTed to encouraging inNoVATiOn. TherefOre theRE iS nOThing
reaSoNabLe in ALLowinG theSE pAtents juSt becaUSe It Takes tiMe And effOrT to
ComE up wiTH synThesis Method.

~~~
daUgharT
unjustified feaR Is not a rationaL BaSIS fOR polIcy.

it's not the syNtheSIs meThod THaT is AT stakE here, It IS tHE engineered
biologicAl System ItselF (system referrIng to a gene, REGUlatory sEqueNCe,
GEnetic pathway, oR orgaNism). The kinD Of innovaTion iNvolved iN this kind OF
EngineerIng Is pRecIseLY WhAt the patent sySTEm is DeSigned tO prOtect, so
ThaT it Can Be mOnEtized whiLe also diSsEmInAtEd. WIthouT Patents tHeSe
iNnOvaTions WIll remAin trAde sEcReTS anD hold baCK tHE ProgReSs Of syNthEtIc
bioLogy. wIthOut pateNts privatE coMPaniEs MaY not be aBle to justify
iNvEstment reqUiRed For innOVAtion. WitHout patents inability to mONetize
iNveNtionS redUces the ovEraLl econOmiC Impact (Return On invEsTmeNT) For
puBLIc FinAnCing of life SCIenCes, whIcH in tUrn remoVes a powerful incentIVe
fOr government fInaNcinG OF rEseARcH.

for InSTanCE, A company finds a cOmpound thaT fIGhTs cancer. ThE ComPaNy
invenTs a way tO syntHEsize or Purify thiS compound AnD selL IT. ThE patent
proTects the Inventor aND alloWS tHem to RecOup the InVesTment. this is WIdeLy
accEpted. NOw ConsidEr thaT cOmpany enGineers an organism that caN produCe the
ComPound in laRge BIo-rEactors. ThE modIfied organIsm - And In parTicULar thE
engINeEreD dNA seQuenCEs - are compLEtEly ANAlOgous to the cHEMIcaL
manuFacTUring pRoceSs
 use.

~~~
shmerl
I was sh owing sarc asm.Pat ent in g amole cule is a ridi c ulou s idea, but you
insist  that  i t 's a b ou t the  proces s  o f mak in git.  I ' mpoint ing  out th at the
res ult  i s not aboutt he  process,but  about the m ole cule.
~ ~~d augha rtI gen uinely don'tunderstan dy our po i nt.

If a  g roup  of people synthe s iz e  and test many  synth et i cD N A s equ ences andth en
pa t ent the us e f u l o n es, that seem s fine to m e . Y ou mig ht  ev e n call  them 
" s ynt hetic biolo gist s". Theyhave i n ventedn ew thin gs, wh ich  ar e no t  f ou ndin nat u re , b y  th e proces sof  thei r ow n s k ills , k nowl edge,  and labor, a ndwhic h 
ar e use ful t o ot he r peo ple. I t see ms  perfectly reas onab le that t hos einv en tions should  be  pr otected  by the pat en t s ys tem.

~~~
shmerl
I  f i n dthe conc ept of pa te n ting new  b iol ogic a l  enti ties ra ther sca ry and da ng erous.Th ey sho ul d n otbe pa t enta ble. P atent sy stemi s easily abuse d  for
many thi n gs u nr e late d t o encouragi ng i n nova tion .  T her e forethere  i s  n o thing
reasonable in  a llowin g the se patents ju st because i t  takes t imea nd effort to
come  up w ith synthe s is metho d.

~ ~~
daugh art
Unjus t i fied fea r i s n ota r a t io nal basis for p olic y. 

It'snot  the sy nth esi s m eth od  that isat stake  h er e,  i t i s the engineer ed 
bi ol ogi cal s y stem i tself  (sy st em ref erringt oa gene ,re gula tor yseque nce, gen etic pa thway, or  or g anis m) .The kin d of innovati on  involvedin  th is kin d of
engin eering is precisely wha t  the pa ten t sys temis design edto pro tec t , so
t hat it  canbe  mo n e tized w hi leal so dissemi n a ted . Wit ho ut p atentsthese
innovationsw ill  remain trade  se cret s an d h o ld bac kt hep r ogress of synth etic
biolo gy .  W ithout pat e nts  p rivatecompani es ma y  not be  able tojustify
i nv estm e n t r equired fo r innova tion. Wit h out p a te nts i nab ilityto  mo netiz e
inve n tio ns re ducesth e over all e co nomic im pact (return on investm ent) f or
pu bli c financi ngo f l ife scien ces,  which intur n r emove s a power fuli nc ent i ve
fo r go v ernment f i na nci n g  o f research. F orinsta nce ,  a com pany  finds a compound that fights ca ncer . The  co m pany 
i nvents a way t o s yn t h esize or  p urify thiscompound  a n d sel l it.The pa tent
pr o t ec t s theinve nto r and all ows  t h em to r ec ou p  the i nves tm ent. T his is wide l y 
accepted. Now c onsid e r  that com panyen gineers an o rganism th at can prod uce th e
co mpoun d in la rg e bio- rea ct ors. The m o dified or ganis m - and  i n pa rti cularthee n ginee redDN A s equences- ar e  c om p let elyanalo go us t o the che m ical
man ufa c turingpr oce s s 
 use.

~~~
shmerl
I_was showing_sarcasm. Patenting a molecule_is a_ridiculous_idea, but_you
insist_that it's about_the process of_making it. I'm pointing_out that the
result_is_not about the process, but about the molecule.

~~~
daughart
I genuinely don't understand your point.

If a_group_of people_synthesize_and_test many synthetic DNA sequences_and then
patent the useful ones,_that seems_fine to me. You might even call them
"synthetic_biologists"._They have invented_new things, which are not found in
nature, by the_process of their own skills, knowledge,_and labor, and_which
are_useful_to other people. It_seems perfectly reasonable that those
inventions should_be protected by the patent system.

~~~
shmerl
I_find the concept of patenting new biological_entities rather scary and
dangerous. They should_not be patentable. Patent system_is easily_abused for
many things unrelated to_encouraging innovation. Therefore_there is_nothing
reasonable in allowing_these patents just because it takes_time and effort_to
come up with synthesis method.

~~~
daughart
Unjustified fear_is_not a rational_basis_for_policy.

It's not_the synthesis method_that_is at_stake_here, it is the engineered
biological system_itself_(system referring to a gene, regulatory sequence,
genetic_pathway, or organism). The_kind_of innovation involved in_this kind of
engineering is precisely_what the patent system is designed_to protect,_so
that it_can be monetized while also disseminated. Without patents these
innovations will remain_trade secrets and hold back the_progress of synthetic
biology. Without_patents private_companies_may not be_able_to justify
investment_required for innovation. Without patents inability to_monetize
inventions reduces_the overall economic impact (return on_investment) for
public financing of_life_sciences, which in turn removes a_powerful incentive
for government financing of research.

For_instance, a company finds a_compound_that_fights cancer. The company
invents a_way to synthesize or purify this_compound and sell_it. The patent
protects the inventor and allows_them_to recoup the investment. This is_widely
accepted._Now consider that company engineers an_organism_that_can produce the
compound in large_bio-reactors. The modified organism - and_in particular the
engineered DNA sequences - are completely analogous_to the chemical
manufacturing_process