Human genome 'finally complete'

[iluvblender]

:o

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2940601.stm

[>]

[bmax]

i say, bullshit.

[IngieBee]

Can I have a clone of Arnold Schwartzenager (spelling?)

[theeth]

i say, bullshit.

ditto

Martin

[Ecks]

[quote=blendermax]i say, bullshit.

ditto

Martin[/quote]

why? I mean…maybe they really finish it…

[Dani]

Something that stuns me is that even nature’s most elemental proprety is being “copyrighted”
I didn’t read this article so I don’t know if it’s mentionned here, but in other science magazines this is clearly pointed out.

THere’s a project of free human genome, some kind of opensource… they were doing pretty well when I last got some news…

Anyway… bullshit

Dani

[theeth]

[quote=theeth][quote=blendermax]i say, bullshit.

ditto[/quote]

why? I mean…maybe they really finish it…[/quote]

Let me put this straight.

They didn’t DECODE the human genome, they just scanned it and wrote the sequence somewhere.
That can be compared to taking some carvings in cuneiform and writing it down on a sheet of paper. Oh yes, you have transcribed it, but you don’t know what it means/does.

Knowing virtually the entire sequence of the roughly three billion letters of genetic code in our DNA

Identifying genes can now be done in days instead of years. But for medicine, the real challenge is to move from knowing which malfunctioning gene or genes cause a particular condition to knowing how to do something about it.

For this, they will need to understand better how the proteins - the sophisticated molecules which cells make from the gene “templates” - interact to build and maintain our bodies.

The science of genomics may be well established but the science of proteomics is still in its infancy.

Which proves exactly what I just said.

Martin

[Dani]

%| Why can’t some people just be a math and physics guru and not also a biology one too? %|

Dani

[bmax]

[quote=theeth][quote=blendermax]i say, bullshit.

ditto

Martin[/quote]

why? I mean…maybe they really finish it…[/quote]

its impossible to describe a system of which you are a part. this is a law stated by a german (?) mathmatician by the name of … (someone help me out!)

[tordat]

Something that stuns me is that even nature’s most elemental proprety is being “copyrighted”

Patents on genes is probably one of the most disgusting things. :<

its impossible to describe a system of which you are a part. this is a law stated by a german (?) mathmatician by the name of … (someone help me out!)

Sounds bit cryptic. Quantum mechanics ? Maybe Heisenberg.

[S68]

Could be a very free interpretation of Goedel’s theorem.

Stefano

[IMProvisar]

Patents on genes is probably one of the most disgusting things. :<

Same here, though I’m not sure really… it somewhat depends. Patenting a gene itself, yes, that’s stupid… it’s like trying to patent the Sun, which is not allowable (or not supposed to be). There’s somewhat of a loophole though… I have no problem with patenting a process or test for finding a certain gene. For instance, I know of one such patent filed by a company which has found a gene which affects breast cancer rates. They sell the test kits which test for this gene. Now I’m not sure what exactly they have the patent on… if it’s the gene, then I have a big problem with it, but if they have a patent for the process of testing for that gene, then that is fine with me, and exactly what patents are designed for. Of course… there’s nothing stopping you from trying to find a different method of detecting that gene, then getting your own patent and going into competition.

Imp

[tordat]

Now I’m not sure what exactly they have the patent on… if it’s the gene, then I have a big problem with it, but if they have a patent for the process of testing for that gene, then that is fine with me, and exactly what patents are designed for.
Imp

If there are bioscientis around they may correct me.
As I understood the have the patent on the gene or the sequenz respectivaly. Meaning if someone else wants to develop a test or already has an allternative test based on this gene (e g breast cancer gene) they have to pay the license fee. Because the license fee is usually very expensive you have to buy their test and throw your own test away. That hinders research.

I have nothing against patents on tests, drugs, and methods. Somehow the research and the scientists have to be payed. I have something against patents on fundamentals.

If someone would have the patent on the number 1 and another on 3 and 5 my phone number would look like this 0?0???49??0. I couldn’t even call myself, because I have no money to pay the license fee.

[Al_Capone]

And IMP wonders why I’m against patients, I say cut the head off at its source get rid of patients and copyrights law, replace them with reconsion instead.

[Al_Capone]

If someone would have the patent on the number 1 and another on 3 and 5 my phone number would look like this 0?0???49??0. I couldn’t even call myself, because I have no money to pay the license fee.

Tordat, you’re wonderfull and thats the evil of copyrights and patients, it will only erode to more control and bigger government.

[IMProvisar]

I have nothing against patents on tests, drugs, and methods. Somehow the research and the scientists have to be payed. I have something against patents on fundamentals.

If it’s a patent on the gene itself, then that’s wrong, and not what patents are meant for. You’re absolutely right.

And IMP wonders why I’m against patients, I say cut the head off at its source get rid of patients and copyrights law, replace them with reconsion instead.

Um… I haven’t wondered one moment why you’re against patents. (I would wonder why you’re against patients though, lol). In this particular case, there shouldn’t be a patent. It doesn’t mean patents are wrong, but that there are some profound morons in the patent office right now.

Oh, and what the hell is “reconsion”???

Imp

[mrmunkily]

Patents Notwithstanding, the real accomplishment here is annotation and identification.

There a couple of things that have to be remembered:

1. The genome isn’t something that can just be “read” at will. It took the better part of 15 years and tremendous man-hours of labor just to discern the sequence of MOST of the code. It takes SO long to sequence it that just going linearly, or even in an organized parralel fashion was out of the qeustion. - So random small peices were sequenced in parallel and the overlaps were used to deduce the whole sequence. that’s what was found in 2000 - basically the whole sequence, but missing some peices that were difficult to read for technical reasons. Another problem is that it’s possible the overlaps “lied” and the algorithm actually put the genome together improperly. Since then it’s been confirmed though that it was correct the first time.

2. Now, they’ve had enough time to check over the results of the first compilation and most importantly decide what the different portions are for, and what they represent. This has barely begun and will probably take a long time. But as people get more involved with the data alrady gathered there will be more and more useful information (meta-data) associated with the sequence itself. Already you can find many sections of the genome that are well characterized - look through a GenBank flatfile, it basically contains a genome in XML. Around the sequence there is a lot of useful information. It’s hardly just ACGTGTT blah.

3. Patents of things that are not machines (concrete inventions) blow goats. Gene patents haven’t yet impeded any research though, to my knowledge. Of course most people never hear about research that wasnt pursued for one reason or another.

[mrmunkily]

oh, and yhea im a molecular bio major

[theeth]

oh, and yhea im a molecular bio major

MrMunkily: 1
Other Monkeys: 0

maybe I was a bit too negative in my previous post. It wasn’t my intention to lower the value or their accomplishment, but I really found that the title was inappropriate for what they have done (as is often the case in fulgarisation (sp?) texts).

cheerio,
Martin

[tordat]

Of course most people never hear about research that wasnt pursued for one reason or another.

Oh,I heard of it. Think it’s called pure research. A good old tradition in the scientists community.
BTW, I think research means that you at least want something to discover. Sometimes this is reason enough and sometimes you discover that there is nothing to discover and this is a discovery in itself. %| %| %|

Time is no argument. It took thousands of years to discover Newton’s mechanics, decades to discover quantum theory etc.

Why can’t I get a patent on English. Took me long time to read it and still I don’t understand not all of this strange sequences of letters. But I know it is good for something.

I definetly go for open source genes and sequences.
For the subsequent products, ideas or what ever, those should be payed who find someone paying for it.
That’s something even I can understand.