Who Wins From Nature's Genetic Bounty? (theguardian.com) 11
Scientists are harvesting genetic data from microorganisms in a North Yorkshire quarry, fueling a global debate over ownership and profit-sharing of natural genetic resources. Researchers from London-based startup Basecamp Research are collecting samples and digitizing genetic codes for sale to AI companies. This practice of trading digital sequencing information (DSI) has become central to biotechnology research and development. The issue will be a focal point at October's COP16 biodiversity summit in Cali, Colombia, The Guardian reports.
Developing nations, home to much of the world's biodiversity, are pushing for a global system requiring companies to pay for genetic data use. Past discoveries underscore the potential value: heat-resistant bacteria crucial for COVID-19 testing and marine organisms used in cancer treatments have generated significant profits. Critics accuse companies of "biopiracy" for commercializing genetic information without compensating source countries. Proposed solutions include a global fund for equitable benefit-sharing, though implementation details remain contentious.
Developing nations, home to much of the world's biodiversity, are pushing for a global system requiring companies to pay for genetic data use. Past discoveries underscore the potential value: heat-resistant bacteria crucial for COVID-19 testing and marine organisms used in cancer treatments have generated significant profits. Critics accuse companies of "biopiracy" for commercializing genetic information without compensating source countries. Proposed solutions include a global fund for equitable benefit-sharing, though implementation details remain contentious.
Intellectual Property (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that a country can claim intellectual property rights in genetic data is no different than a company attempting to seize rights in a photograph of a landmark within its borders. Not only does it fly in the face of the entire purpose of intellectual property, it is an attempt to claim rights in a work where any copyright that may have once existed has expired, and even if it were still in effect, genetic material is the property of its ancestor, not the country where it happened to be found.
This wil
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there's a thing called the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. It protects unoriginal works under the theory that the work that went into development deserves protection, even if it's not original. Now, that doctrine applies to copyright more than patents, but I can certainly see the courts applying that standard to patents as well. After all, design patents are allowed, and those are an abomination.
seriously? (Score:3)
These countries didn't invent the bacteria living there. Why should they get paid for it? That's a hell of a thing.
You can have the bacteria. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, a typical bacteria genome is single digit megabases long, that's under $100 to sequence if you're doing just one and under $10 if you're doing it at scale (a whole bunch of different bacteria).
Re: (Score:1)
According to Tribble Top, Wuhan labs did just that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's different. China has the right to charge $1 copyright fee per copy of covid virus in every person that got infected. You didn't take the vaccine and got infected .. you owe the Chinese trillions of dollars for making copies of their virus.
Oh, fuck that! (Score:1)
You want to benefit? Invent something and patent it. Otherwise, fuck off!
No (Score:2)
How about a global (Score:1)
...mutual sharing agreement, included data from sequenced DNA. Tracking the source and IP of jillions of critters is just not practical. It's almost as futile & useless as software patents.