GMOs, Seed patents, gene technology ownership, wind blowing pollen bearing inventions, - Those interested in the Monsanto vs Schmeiser case in the Supreme Court, you will find all facts in the documentary book by Annabel Soutar "Seeds" https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Annabel-Soutar-ebook/dp/B00AQ3W...
“Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
361–370 of 371 posts
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just informing you that your ethics here are without rational foundation. Why should anyone care one iota what you consider to be evil, if you cannot justify it? This merely reflects your irrational phobias, not anything anyone else needs to take seriously.
I'm informing you that ethics of patenting life are evil on the border of "mad science". Not really interested in debunking this nonsense anymore.
Yes, you are the touchstone that defines what ethics is. Everyone else must bow down to your pronouncements; asking for justification is not allowed (is that also "evil"?)
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh my goodness. You are completely clueless about the economics of drug discovery. It is vastly more difficult and expensive than you think.
Am I though, or am I just looking arbitrary restrictions put in place by various governments either directly or indirectly curbing deliverable drugs? Oh and pharma's shitty business practices. I don't think it's fair to call it economics when all the costs are derived from legal fictions and stakeholder disinterest.
Yes, drug discovery can become much easier if you don't have to show the drugs work and are safe. Any old chemical can be called a drug in that case; you don't even have to laboriously search through the exponentially vast space of possible chemicals for the winners.
Snake oil, anyone?
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
God forbid the farmers benefit for free in some way from the unpredictable and uncontrollable pollination of a plant genetically engineered to be a highly successful cultivar. I'm not attacking you here, but the logic decided by the courts may be lawful but it is not moral (in my opinion). It's as if a noisy neighbour hosts a late night party and you happen to enjoy the music. The neighbour notices and decides to cha…
But look at the flip side where the court ruled the farmer cannot be liable for a plant naturally spreading into his field (and the farmer upon learning this using the specific herbicide meant for that specific plant strain). You now have precedent that if the plant "accidentally" (wink wink) spreads to your field you are not liable for the cost of the plant
To be totally honest, I am fine with the situation you just described. The only argument in favour of IP is "but what about the economics of the seeds?" i.e. "but how will corporations get rich without it?" and my answer is: they will have to find some other way to contribute to humanity than placing a stranglehold on the freedoms of the poor.
Edit for those whose rebuttal is all too predictable: I know this affects the incentive structure for developing new science. But I don't think it's at all clear that the current incentives are actually a good thing in the long run. Alternatives for income could be one of the following: providing a service, producing and selling the seeds, working with local farmers to help them maximise yield from the seeds you developed, securing donations from those who stand to benefit from your research... etc.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't know about hybrid seeds: "In agriculture and gardening, hybrid seed is produced by deliberately cross-pollinated plants which are genetically diverse" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed
They're also a huge pain in the ass to produce, at least in my experience. Producing hybrid corn seeds, for instance, is done by planting the two varieties in the same field, with one combine-width of rows of variety A alternating with rows of variety B. Then you need to wait until variety A is grown and ready to tassel, and de-tassel it before those tassels fully form and release the pollen that drifts onto the corn…
I wished more people knew this.
Also, if you miss a couple of plants while de-tasseling it can be very bad. You must also sign contracts with your neighbors where they will refrain from planting the same crop (in exchange for $). Additionally, to get the best yield they usually place beehives to enhance pollination.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think brnt’s comment contradicts yours. They agree that farmers understand financials. But they also restates what you said. Farmers don’t understand the actual biology of farming. They are dependent on the company provided experts for that. The only real difference between you and the other commenter is your definition of the word “smart”. You both agree on the facts. Also, “Even a Netflix documentary” is a…
Not all farmers understand the depths of the biology they work with, but some probably do. Not all programmers understand how their instructions influence the circuits that execute them. That does not validate statements like "programmers don't understand electronics."
The majority of programmers on HN probably could not reverse engineer even the simplest 555 timer without at least a week of study.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they have been cross pollinating parents with desirable traits to produce an offspring with more desirable traits. The same thing Pepsi did to make FC5 potato. Here is the patent for the FC5 potato. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6940004B2/en Read it carefully because while the patent claims that it also would apply if transgenic modifications are added, the variety was developed through just classic breedin…
And it's fine to patent specific (and novel) varieties of potato. The patent just applies to that specific variety, not to the general concept of improving potatoes. It's irrelevant that other specific varieties may have been bred for millenia.
So PepsiCo can utilize others prior breeding work, but prevents others from using their variety’s to breed with ?
If everyone who bred a potato patented it, we all suffer as breeders would be limited in what they can work with.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all farmers understand the depths of the biology they work with, but some probably do. Not all programmers understand how their instructions influence the circuits that execute them. That does not validate statements like "programmers don't understand electronics."
The majority of programmers on HN probably could not reverse engineer even the simplest 555 timer without at least a week of study.
It's considered rude when someone attempts to speak for the entire reader-base on HN.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of programmers on HN probably could not reverse engineer even the simplest 555 timer without at least a week of study.
It's considered rude when someone attempts to speak for the entire reader-base on HN.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I though, or am I just looking arbitrary restrictions put in place by various governments either directly or indirectly curbing deliverable drugs? Oh and pharma's shitty business practices. I don't think it's fair to call it economics when all the costs are derived from legal fictions and stakeholder disinterest.
Yes, drug discovery can become much easier if you don't have to show the drugs work and are safe. Any old chemical can be called a drug in that case; you don't even have to laboriously search through the exponentially vast space of possible chemicals for the winners. Snake oil, anyone?
Yeah I guess we ahould go from one extreme to the other and totally forget all the biochemistry and public knowledge of drugs we've accumulated in the last 100 years.
As to working the baseline efficacy benchmark is 30%. Not really a stunning number considering it has already been selected as a remedy for something specific at that point. Curatives aren't marketable when profit motive of stakeholders is involved.
Big pharma peddles snake oil, too, by the way. Serotonin theory is becoming increasingly unpopular and SSRIs are looking increasingly dangerous as a clinical proposition, and they're frequently misused in clinical settings. Despite all of that they're taken by 13% of Americans, and the trend points towards an increasing number. Lest we forget: the pretension of safety Pharma acts under has been dangerous in many instances.
There's plenty of ethnogenic compounds that smack against your theory, too, by the way. In any case, to my knowledge, most of these "drugs" are derivative from known-active compounds, altered then patented (sometimes finding better therapeutic doses, lower toxicity, better dose response). At this point the laborious search is relatively smaller. Not to mention it's currently being offset to molecular dynamics which allows us to engineer hypothetical molecules against simulated proteins including those that are dysfunctional as well as model pathways for synthesis.
AZ Molecular Dynamics: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGS_mv1-94