Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Institute Seeks Patents on the World's First-Ever Human-Made Life Form

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 02:09 PM
Original message
Institute Seeks Patents on the World's First-Ever Human-Made Life Form
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's really exciting stuff from a scientific standpoint but it does raise a lot of moral and ethical questions that I really can't answer to my own satisfaction. Interesting situation and it's gonna be one worth following for sure.
--###--
original-etc

News Release
ETC Group
7 June 2007
www.etcgroup.org
--###--

Patenting Pandora's Bug

Goodbye, Dolly...Hello, Synthia!
J. Craig Venter Institute Seeks Monopoly Patents on the World's First-Ever Human-Made Life Form

ETC Group Will Challenge Patents on "Synthia" - Original Syn Organism Created in Laboratory


Ten years after Dolly the cloned sheep made her stunning debut, the J. Craig Venter Institute is applying for a patent on a new biological bombshell - the world's first-ever human-made species. The novel bacterium is made entirely with synthetic DNA in the laboratory.

The Venter Institute - named for its founder and CEO, J. Craig Venter, the scientist who led the private sector race to map the Human Genome - is applying for worldwide patents on what they refer to as "Mycoplasma laboratorium." In the tradition of 'Dolly,' ETC has nicknamed this synthetic organism (or 'syn') 'Synthia.'
"Synthia may not be as cuddly as a cloned lamb, but we believe this is a much bigger deal," explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group, a civil society organization that is calling on the world's patent offices to reject the applications. "These monopoly claims signal the start of a high-stakes commercial race to synthesize and privatize synthetic life forms. Will Venter's company become the 'Microbesoft' of synthetic biology?" asks Jim Thomas.

"For the first time, God has competition," adds Pat Mooney of ETC Group. "Venter and his colleagues have breached a societal boundary, and the public hasn't even had a chance to debate the far-reaching social, ethical and environmental implications of synthetic life," said Mooney.

In Vivo, In Vitro, In-Venter? Published on May 31, 2007, the Venter Institute's US Patent application (number 20070122826) claims exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic "free-living organism that can grow and replicate" that is made using those genes. The Venter Institute has also filed an international patent application at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO number WO2007047148, published April 27, 2007) which names more than 100 countries where it may seek monopoly patents.

Pandora pending: Patent experts consulted by ETC Group indicate that, based on the language used in the application, the Venter Institute researchers had probably not achieved a fully-functioning organism at the time of the filing (October 12, 2006).

"It has been eight months since the Institute applied for its patents, so we don't know how much progress they've made, whether there is a scientific paper in press or how imminent the first synthetic species is," said Pat Mooney of ETC Group. "We've been hearing for more than two years now that Venter is on the verge of announcing the birth of a new bacterium. Many people think Venter's company has the scientific expertise to do the job," said Mooney.

Venter's Institute claims that its stripped-down microbe could be the key to cheap energy production. The patent application claims any version of "Synthia" that can make ethanol or hydrogen. Since the research was partially funded by the US Department of Energy, the US government will hold "certain rights" to the patent, if approved.

"It's purely speculation and hype that syns will be used to ameliorate climate change by producing cheap ethanol or hydrogen," said Jim Thomas. "The same minimal microbe could be harnessed to build a virulent pathogen that could pose grave threats to people and the planet," he said.

"Synthetic biologists have already assembled the poliovirus from off-the-shelf DNA, a feat that its constructor called 'a giant wake up call' because of the biowarfare implications. Syns are being hyped as a green, climate-change solution in order to deflect concerns that they could be used as bioweapons," adds Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group.

The patent application is also a wake-up call to synthetic biologists who are advocating for "open source" biology - the idea that the fundamental tools and components of synthetic biology should be freely accessible to researchers. In the June 4 issue of Newsweek Craig Venter boasts, "If we made an organism that produced fuel, that could be the first billion- or trillion-dollar organism. We would definitely patent that whole process." In 2005, Venter founded Synthetic Genomics, Inc. to commercialize synthetic microbes for use in energy, agriculture and climate change remediation.

Syn of Omission? Synthetic biologists may also be dismayed to learn that Synthia is being patented for what it is not. The patent application explains that the inventors arrived at their minimal genome by determining which genes are essential and which are not. Remarkably, their patent application claims any synthetically-constructed organism that lacks at least 55 of 101 genes that they've determined are non-essential. "All synthetic biologists developing functionalized microbes are going to have to pay close attention to the claim on a 'non-essential' set of genes. If someone creates another bug that lacks some of the same genes that Synthia lacks, will the Venter Institute sue them for infringing its patent?" asks Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group.

Action Needed: Before syns are allowed to go forward, society must debate whether they are socially acceptable or desirable: How could their accidental release into the environment be prevented or the effects of their intentional release be evaluated? Who will control them, and how? How will research be regulated? In 2006 a coalition of 38 civil society organizations called on synthetic biologists to withdraw proposals for self-governance of the technology.

Today, ETC Group is writing to Dr. J. Craig Venter, CEO of the J. Craig Venter Institute, asking him to withdraw the Institute's patent applications filed at the U.S. PTO and WIPO, pending a full public debate over the implications of creating synthetic life forms.

"We don't want to engage in a long-term legal strategy to slap down bad patents. These patents must be struck down before they're issued," said ETC Group's Hope Shand. Last month, ETC Group won its 13-year legal challenge when the European Patent Office revoked Monsanto's species-wide soybean patent.

ETC is also writing to WIPO and the U.S. PTO, asking them to reject the patent on the grounds that it is contrary to ordre public (public morality and safety). Later this month ETC Group will attend Synthetic Biology 3.0 (an international conference of synthetic biologists) in Zürich, Switzerland June 24-26 where it will call upon scientists to join in a global dialogue on synthetic biology. ETC will organize meetings with governments and civil society during the upcoming scientific subcommittee meetings of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Paris, July 2-6, in order to discuss the implications of the creation of synthetic life forms for the Biodiversity Convention and for its protocol on biosafety. ETC Group will convene a global meeting of civil society actors on this and related issues within the next year.






















complete release including links to other sources here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think this is very exciting....
Edited on Thu Jun-07-07 02:15 PM by mike_c
I agree with you-- it raises a tremendous number of questions about the future conduct of biological manufacturing, but I think it would be a terrible waste to dismiss that debate as not worth having due to superstition (e.g. religion). One of the reasons we had so many post-industrial revolution social problems is that we didn't fully consider the implications of that revolution. This time we have an opportunity to do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I don't think we have the option of dismissing the debate,
as much as I'm sure lots of folks would like to. Apparently the technology is here and how we're going to deal with it is something that we can approach with eyes wide open and really try consider the implications before rushing headlong into something that we're gonna regret later or put to use intelligently, wisely and judiciously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. incredible

Have to agree with both of you - this opens up lots of questions and gray areas along with the amazing potential opportunities. Their patent application does seem to warrant some scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UndertheOcean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fascinating ...
I remember when debating my father about religion and science he would sometimes say : "Can the scientists make an ant ? from scratch? impossible!"

well , dad , maybe thats possible after all :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. I always did believe that there are some things ...........
........that just shouldn't be messed with. This is one of them.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6.  I'm with you -
Don't we already have enough problems with man interfering with nature ?

I don't like the idea of cloning or GM crops . Nature has it's own way of perfecting what it has already and man has no place in altering this . Just leave well enough alone and put efforts to make the world heal .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sorry I still stand by the constitution on this one, even though it was totally
ignored by ray-gun. No living orgamism should be patented. If anything it should become public domain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Without the pot-o-gold of monopoly protection, I doubt there'd be a fever to produce ...
... such organisms for profit and under such intense dreams of riches. If the laws afforded absolutely no prospect of narrow gain and didn't outlaw duplication or reverse engineering, I'd see two effects: (1) less for-profit investment in such eefforts and (2) less inclination to loose such organisms where they'd be accessible.

Patent protection is intended to encourage such efforts under the theory that the public (the arbiter of such law) benefits by having it done. I too question the net 'benefit' absent the extensive "Quality Assurance" process that evolution and natural selection affords. After all, who's to say that many lifeless planets aren't instances of failures in such a QA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. It may be the death of us, eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. 'the US government will hold "certain rights" to the patent, if approved'
Edited on Fri Jun-08-07 05:52 AM by muriel_volestrangler
Normally, I'd say "good, I'd want some kind of government control over such a potentially useful, but also dangerous, ability". But now I know what a US government can do ... :scared:

So far, this doesn't seem to have got much mainstream coverage. But The Guardian has done a piece on it, reasonably prominently (linked to from their home page): Tycoon's team finds fewest number of genes needed for life

and now the BBC: Patent issued on 'synthetic life' (which seems inaccurate- surely 'patent applied for ...'?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. "For the first time, God has competition." ... *shudder*
Maybe I just read too much science fiction, but statements like that really trigger my red flags.

"Look, Igor, I've invented a new Earthquake Machine! Now, let us see how we can use this technology to help mankind! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC