[Octrooi op biotech?]

[Micha Kuiper]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Robert schreef aan Frits:
> >Met genetische manipulatie worden hele genconstructen van het ene organsime
> >naar het andere overgebracht, zonder dat de natuurlijke soort in acht worden
> >genomen. Wil jij dit - bijna - vergelijken met klassieke genetica?
> >Als ik het goed begrepen heb wil men deze techniek van manipulatie breed
> >gaan toepassen op levens organisme.

"F. van der Schans" <fvanderschans at GELDERLAND.NL> wrote:
> Je citeert me helemaal goed. Ik wil bepaalde klassieke technieken waaronder
> de rechtstreekse manipulatie van genen dmv bijv. licht en/of straling bijna
> vergelijken genetische manipulatie. Ik vind het vreemd om de streep te
> zetten tussen bepaalde vergaande 'klassieke technieken' en hetgeen velen
> vatten onder 'genetische manipulatie'. Ik zou dan graag een heldere
> scheidslijn van je vernemen? Is genetische manipulatie het overbrengen van
> soortvreemde genen? Hoe zit het dan bepaalde klassieke manipulaties bij
> bacterien. Of geld daarvoor een ander criterium?

(Micha:)
Frits,
je hebt gelijk dat er misschien weinig verschil is tussen moderne
gentechnologie en vergaande klassieke genetica.  Ik kan dat niet
beoordelen want ik heb mij helemaal nooit verdiept in het laatste.
Maar als dat zo is, dan zou (dus) dat laatste ook eens scherp onder
de loep genomen moeten worden: misschien kleven daar ook veel
meer risico's aan dan men beseft heeft.

Dat gedoe over "waar precies de scheidslijn ligt" is weinig praktisch.
Het is heel simpel: ouderwetse voeding, zonder poespas, vinden
we acceptabel.  Gentech-voedsel is niet acceptabel.  Dus eerst
dat voorlopig verbieden, totdat er voldoende onderzoek is gedaan
om het mogelijk wel te accepteren.  DaarNA pas kunnen we
op zoek gaan naar de exacte scheidslijn.

(Robert wr)
> >Vind jij het democratisch om organisme, wat de gehele mensheid toebehoort,
> >middels patenten in handen te geven van een handjevol multinationals?

(Frits wr)
> Je stelt je op het standpunt dat een gemanipuleerd organisme de gehele
> mensheid toebehoort. Dan is je stellingname terecht dat dit niet toekomt
> aan een handjevol multinationals. Maar de vraag is natuurlijk of een
> gemanipuleerd organisme wel aan de gehele mensheid toebehoort? Daar ben ik
> nog niet van overtuigd.

(Micha)
De zaak ligt wat ingewikkelder.  De EU Richtlijn 98/44 wil niet alleen patenten
verlenen op gemodificeerde planten, ook het uitgangsmateriaal, de genen
zelf, worden patenteerbaar.  Ook (juist) voor voorstanders van gentech
moet dit een doorn in het oog zijn.  Wie het eerst patenteert (en er is heel
weinig of geen innovatie nodig om voor patent in aanmerking te komen)
kan volgende innovaties stoppen of uitmelken.

Zoals ik in mijn andere mail schreef, is patent op landbouwgewassen in
de Nederlandse situatie misschien niet onredelijk, maar in de Derde
Wereld is het desastreus, en in een globaliserende wereld is patent
op gewassen daarom ook in Nederland niet acceptabel.  Er zijn
betere oplossingen te verzinnen.

2 bijlagen:
-David Suzuki over gen-voedsel
-Guardian, over patenten

vriendelijke groeten,
Micha 11-6-00

==============================

> `WE ARE THE EXPERIMENT': DAVID SUZUKI APPROVES OF GM FOODS IN PRINCIPLE, BUT
> OPPOSES THE RUSH TO GET THEM ON SHELVES January 10, 2000 The Ottawa Citizen A4
> Tom Spears In 1961, David Suzuki was a hotshot young geneticist with a shiny
> new PhD from the University of Chicago, ready to take on the toughest
> problems DNA could throw at him. Today, he tells students what his generation
> thought about how our genes work, and the kids kill themselves laughing. Then
> he tells them that in 20 years, the next younger generation will be laughing
> at them for the dumb ideas of 2000. This notion shakes them. ``They don't
> realize that most of our ideas at the cutting edge of science are wrong,'' he
> says. ``The whole way that science progresses is, you take a set of
> observations, you try to make sense of them by setting up a hypothesis, you
> test the hypothesis. And usually you go, whoa, is this ever wrong. Or: We've
> got to modify this. The way that science progresses is by showing that most
> of our ideas are wrong.'' Which brings him to genetically modified food,
> something he approves of in principle, but doesn't want to see on store
> shelves yet. He feels we haven't explored it enough. ``Why are they (biotech
> companies) so anxious to rush to apply knowledge when they know full well the
> chances are overwhelming they're going to be way off the point?'' ``We are
> the experiment ... on which we do not have informed consent,'' he said during
> a tour to promote his new book, From Naked Ape to Superspecies. ``And what
> we've learned is, the public has the right if they're going to take part in
> the experiment ... At the very least, you've got to put labels on. ``The
> Europeans certainly say if you want to find out whether it is dangerous, just
> watch North Americans over the coming years, because we are the experiment.
> ``When you introduce a piece of DNA from an alien species, then often it's
> not integrated in a way that will allow you to predict its inheritance,'' Dr.
> Suzuki said. ``We don't know where the hell they are. They sit in all sorts
> of places, often not attached to chromosomes at all. ``In nature, this kind
> of change does occur, but often what you get is HIV, killer flus and mad cow
> disease and these weird things that come out. ``It is revolutionary, no doubt
> about it. And it's exciting, it's exhilarating, I'm absolutely enthralled by
> it. But because it is revolutionary, we haven't really worked out all the
> details that allow us to have any predictive capacity'' ``We've derived all
> the principles of genetics by breeding within a species.'' That's called
> vertical inheritance: traits are passed down from parent to offspring. The
> new kind is called horizontal inheritance, with traits passed sideways from
> one species to another. And Dr. Suzuki argues this throws the known rules out
> the window. ``When you introduce a piece of DNA from another species, you
> totally alter the context in which that gene finds itself,'' and run the risk
> it may act differently.

=====================

Date:          Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:54:31 +0100

UK Guardian


  Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease

Gene patents hit research



Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday December 15, 1999

Vital medical research aimed at developing screening methods and
cures for congenital diseases is being stifled by the rush to patent
human genes and the corporate use of those patents to maximise prA
poll of American laboratory directors found that a quarter of them had
received letters from lawyers acting for biotechnology companies
ordering them to stop carrying out clinical tests designed to
Although the sharpest impact on scientific research has been
witnessed in the US, under World Trade Organisation rules many of
the patents are applicable worldwide. They could inhibit ground-
breaking
So great is the perceived threat to medical research that a group of
American doctors and scientists have issued a protest saying: "The
use of patents or exorbitant licensing fees to prevent physicia
According to the survey, carried out by researchers in California and
Pennsylvania, half the laboratories questioned said they had stopped
work on developing screening because they knew a patent had
Some of the research scientists who pioneered work on isolating and
identifying genetic deformities linked to serious diseases are now
saying the pace of research and the spread of ideas has been stu
"I've been at conferences where we have been addressed by patent
lawyers and told to stop showing our colleagues our notebooks, or
think twice about submitting an abstract at a meeting," said Jonatha
The patenting of genes dates from a supreme court ruling in 1980 that
permitted patenting of some organisms found in nature. But the
granting of such patents has only taken off in recent years after

The survey of US laboratory directors, which has yet to be published,
offers the strongest evidence so far that the "gene rush" to take out
patents on the human genetic code is beginning to inhibit r
It emerges at a time when the ethics of patenting living genetic
material is coming under increasing scrutiny. A race is under way to
decode the human genome - the entire biological blueprint that ma
One of the authors of the new survey, Mildred Cho, director of the
Stanford University centre for biomedical ethics, said she was
surprised by the hold the patent lawyers had on genetic testing.

"It will diminish access to testing," she said. "It will affect quality
because laboratories normally cross-check their samples for quality
control. You can't do that if one laboratory is doing all t
Laboratories have received letters from a Massachusetts corporation
called Athena Diagnostics informing them that it has "acquired
exclusive rights to certain tests in the diagnosis of late-onset Alz
The cost put the test way beyond the researchers operating on
government grants, who need to examine hundreds of samples in the
search for new mutations and possible therapies.

Another biotech company, Myriad Genetics, has secured exclusive
licences based on patents for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes,
mutations in which are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Like
Athena it d
Arupa Ganguly, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who
received one of the letters, said: "In reality this lab has been stopped
from testing for BRCA 1 and BRCA 2."

Tom Frank, medical director at Myriad, defended the company. It still
allowed testing for purely research purposes, he said, adding that the
company's tests were far more thorough than those carried
Ms Ganguly, however, said the university tests were accurate and
much cheaper.

Barbara Weber, a genetics specialist who resigned as a Myriad
consultant earlier this year because of the company's patent policies,
said yesterday: "I felt their interest in making money had complet

 [ rest van het bericht ontbreekt helaas (micha) ]
--
Micha <Kuiper at knoware.nl>
ph +31 (0)6-555 769 42 / voicemail +31-30-254.3107

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********