Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Villain of CRISPR

michaeleisen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#91

Post by daughart »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #88
daughart wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't own any facts. They own the ability to exclude others from selling, as well as importing/exporting, certain materials.

Which is going to break down quickly when anyone can replicate those materials at little cost on their workbench.

They do a pretty good job regulating drug imports that violate IP, and I suspect they will here as well. The materials in question will be complex human therapeutic compositions, not research materials. I strongly doubt people will be creating therapeutic CRISPR compositions at the workbench (which will also include sophisticated delivery and targeting molecular products).

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#92

Post by daughart »

akiselev wrote: post #55
daughart wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will take millions of dollars of research to turn this basic bioengineering technique into an approved (safe and effective) human therapy. How do you motivate investors to fund this research without the safety net of a patent to protect that investment from free-loaders?

How about the way we do it now, with patents on devices, therapies, and drugs that are approved by the FDA instead of on the techniques used to develop them? There is even a way to extend the patent life of these developments to account for the amount of time it takes to receive government approval with a maximum term of 14 years after approval [1]. Patenting such a fundamental technique as CRISPR will only set back…

The technique used to develop the therapy is not really what is being patented here. In practice, anyone will be able to use CRISPR for research purposes or to develop therapies. The question is, why would you invest in using this to develop a product when you can't actually sell the therapy? The product in question here is a therapeutic CRISPR composition for use in human cells. Lots of people will still invest in the technology and research because it is so valuable. If you invent a novel variant with better cutting properties, for instance, or a modification that reduces toxicity, those would be novel compositions of matter and could easily be the foundation of a new business venture.

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#93

Post by anonbanker »

the fight over CRISPR (which is a discovery of nature, not a creation), especially the fight over the monopoly to apply CRISPR to other fields of science is another example of why the GNU General Public License (or something with as many teeth) is required to keep science open and free.

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#94

Post by tstactplsignore »

nonbel wrote: post #68
tstactplsignore wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, what, just what... the biophysics of the Cas9 system are understood pretty well. We literally get as close as you can get to observing the accepted mechanism of action. How would you explain the consistency of site specific gene integration? You can't be selecting from existing mutants and "just happen" to get your transgenic product inserted at the exact site you specified. Your comment is just absurd. You also…

>"You can't be selecting from existing mutants and "just happen" to get your transgenic product inserted at the exact site you specified. Your comment is just absurd." This is very easy. If you take a very many cells, some small percent will be mutants at any given site (unless you claim zero background rates of mutation, which is absurd and also directly contradicted by the data in these same papers). If you give a…

That might be possible if CRISPR was just a site specific knock out system.

It's not. Your theory does not explain how site specific gene integration of transgenic products is possible if CRISPR/Cas is not an efficient site specific nuclease. If Cas9 is not cutting the DNA at the specific site so the transgenic product can integrate there, we wouldn't be getting the results seen.

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#95

Post by tstactplsignore »

nonbel wrote: post #74
tstactplsignore wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, what, just what... the biophysics of the Cas9 system are understood pretty well. We literally get as close as you can get to observing the accepted mechanism of action. How would you explain the consistency of site specific gene integration? You can't be selecting from existing mutants and "just happen" to get your transgenic product inserted at the exact site you specified. Your comment is just absurd. You also…

What experiment in that paper do you think addresses the issue of selection vs modification? Both require the cleavage of specific DNA sequences, that is all I see reported in Gasiunas et al 2012.

Here, listen. The following two papers conclusively "disprove" your idea. Both use single embryo injection and show multiple successful site specific mutagenesis in groups of no more than 5 to 25 cells.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686313/#SD1

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#96

Post by dalke »

chaostheory wrote: post #28
junto wrote: post #20

I hate the fact that breakthroughs like this are patentable. People need to follow Alexander Flemings lead: The pharmacist Sir Alexander Fleming is revered not just because of his discovery of penicillin – the antibiotic that has saved millions of lives – but also due to his efforts to ensure that it was freely available to as much of the world’s population as possible. Fleming could have become a hugely wealthy man…

Jonah Salk, the guy who developed the polio vaccine "When asked who owned the patent to it, Salk said, 'There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?'"

From what I've heard, he wouldn't have been the one to decide. That would have been his employer, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. And its lawyers had decided that the vaccine wouldn't be patentable under the rules of that time.

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#97

Post by chaostheory »

dalke wrote: post #96
chaostheory wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jonah Salk, the guy who developed the polio vaccine "When asked who owned the patent to it, Salk said, 'There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?'"

From what I've heard, he wouldn't have been the one to decide. That would have been his employer, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. And its lawyers had decided that the vaccine wouldn't be patentable under the rules of that time.

Even if his employer did want to patent his work, considering Salk's huge fame at the time (the guy's a modern dragon slayer), it wouldn't have taken much to convince his employer otherwise. A few interviews here and there and the public outcry would be huge.

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#98

Post by dalke »

chaostheory wrote: post #97
dalke wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard, he wouldn't have been the one to decide. That would have been his employer, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. And its lawyers had decided that the vaccine wouldn't be patentable under the rules of that time.

Even if his employer did want to patent his work, considering Salk's huge fame at the time (the guy's a modern dragon slayer), it wouldn't have taken much to convince his employer otherwise. A few interviews here and there and the public outcry would be huge.

It would surely depend on the patent license, no? As http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovati... points out:

> No one knows why the lawyers considered a patent application, but it seems likely that they would only have used it to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no indication that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio vaccine.

Why would the public be in an uproar about using patent protections to keep low-quality vaccines out of the market, while otherwise making the license available at no cost?

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#99

Post by chaostheory »

dalke wrote: post #98
chaostheory wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if his employer did want to patent his work, considering Salk's huge fame at the time (the guy's a modern dragon slayer), it wouldn't have taken much to convince his employer otherwise. A few interviews here and there and the public outcry would be huge.

It would surely depend on the patent license, no? As http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovati... points out: > No one knows why the lawyers considered a patent application, but it seems likely that they would only have used it to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no indication that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio va…

> Why would the public be in an uproar about using patent protections to keep low-quality vaccines out of the market

For one thing you don't need patent protections to keep 'low quality' vaccines out of the market. To my knowledge, that's what government regulatory bodies like the FDA are for.

> while otherwise making the license available at no cost?

Even if this was the case, I'm sure that Salk knew that if it was patented, that this would be only temporary (with no guarantees on reasonable pricing in the future); and it would be an unnecessary and immediate roadblock to helping people.

Re: The Villain of CRISPR

#100

Post by dalke »

chaostheory wrote: post #99
dalke wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would surely depend on the patent license, no? As http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovati... points out: > No one knows why the lawyers considered a patent application, but it seems likely that they would only have used it to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no indication that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio va…

> Why would the public be in an uproar about using patent protections to keep low-quality vaccines out of the market For one thing you don't need patent protections to keep 'low quality' vaccines out of the market. To my knowledge, that's what government regulatory bodies like the FDA are for. > while otherwise making the license available at no cost? Even if this was the case, I'm sure that Salk knew that if it was…

That's what the FDA does now, yes. However, the polio vaccine was introduced when the FDA had weaker powers. It wasn't until after the Thalidomide tragedy and the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment where pharmaceutical companies also needed to demonstrate effectiveness. Before then, companies only needed to demonstrate safety.

As it was, the Cutter polio vaccine incident shows that making the vaccine was not easy.

> I'm sure that Salk knew ...

How are you sure? Is this discussed in his biography or autobiography? I see the topic is covered in Jane S. Smith's "Patent the Sun", but I haven't read it.

Other vaccines (or vaccine preparations) at the time were patented. Was your described behavior typical for them?

Post reply on HN