NEXT
Talking chimps, fish with neon-like signs on them, animals with logos on their hides, parrots that not only speak but converse intelligently? Is this what this planet has waiting for us a few years down the road? Well, according to Michael Crichton it is. I just finished reading his latest book call Next, and apparently some of the wonders, and horrors, of this new age of Genetics and Biochemistry are already upon us.
An animal that has genes inserted in it from another species is called Transgenic. There are already transgenic sheep, goats, chickens, pigs and mice. Most of these so far are typically for purposes such as generating human proteins in the animal for harvesting. There has also been some work in growing human organs in pigs, for example. Tissue engineering is a fast growing area. Sometimes the altered genes are created with the Recombinant DNA Method, where gene molecules can be sliced apart and recombined with foreign molecules of a different structure, and sealed back up again. Also, implanting sperm cells from one species to eggs of another can be used. So growing a human larynx in a chimp is not so far fetched. Nor any of the other items mentioned above.
But, cross-species oddities are perhaps not the most alarming part of this new age of Genetics. There is also the legal aspect. Did you know that Genes can be and are patented. In fact according to an October 15th, 2005 article in National Geographic, 20% of human genes, at that time, were already patented. The patents are held by primarily by private pharmaceutical firms and universities. The presumed reason to patent genes is to use as research tools, and to develop new drugs. Actually, of the approximately 4000 patented human genes mentioned in the article, one Drug Company in Palo Alto, CA, named Incyte, holds approximately half of all the patents. That's a lot of power in one companies hands.
There is of course a great debate over the ethics, and even common sense of allowing human genes to be patented. In Crichton's story this is carried to the extreme of Biomedical companies claiming they own rights to the genes in a donor's body, and indeed the whole family line, because they have the same DNA, and can extract and use samples from their bodies, since they own it, at any time. If they resisted having these biopsies taken then they could be brought up for criminal charges of stealing or possessing stolen goods. I don't think this has really happened yet, but it is the logical extension of the way the law is currently being interpreted.
So, the whole issue is whether a patent on a gene, which occurs naturally, can be held to be the same as a patent, say on an iPod. Though the particular design of the iPod may be unique, that does not prevent others from developing MP3 players that are similar, to compete with the iPod. There are differences in these kind of patents, on iPods, and patents on genes. For one, genes have been around forever, since there has been life. iPods are an invention by man. Secondly, gene patents are interpreted to not allow anyone to use or do anything with this gene, which means it is a total monopoly. There can be no similar competitive inventions. To carry the analogy further, what if someone patented an ear. Then, any device which used the ear, like speakers, headphones, etc. would have to pay royalties to the holder of the patent for using the 'ear technology'. Clearly, this doesn't make sense, yet gene patent law is leaning in this direction.
Crichton, in his typical fashion, of course makes his novel interesting by, while exposing the controversy of a leading edge technology, also entertaining the reader with suspenseful nail-biting drama. There are humorous parts with Gerard the intelligent and outrageously insolent talking parrot; and the theory that blonds were a genetic mutation in recent pre-history which was a became a genetic marker for more productively child-bearing females. And touching drama of Dave, the transgenetic, part human, part chimp that was trying to make it in the human world with his adopted parents.
Overall, I recommend Next as an entertaining, stimulating and informative read. Read it if you are ready to confront the Brave New World.
An animal that has genes inserted in it from another species is called Transgenic. There are already transgenic sheep, goats, chickens, pigs and mice. Most of these so far are typically for purposes such as generating human proteins in the animal for harvesting. There has also been some work in growing human organs in pigs, for example. Tissue engineering is a fast growing area. Sometimes the altered genes are created with the Recombinant DNA Method, where gene molecules can be sliced apart and recombined with foreign molecules of a different structure, and sealed back up again. Also, implanting sperm cells from one species to eggs of another can be used. So growing a human larynx in a chimp is not so far fetched. Nor any of the other items mentioned above.
But, cross-species oddities are perhaps not the most alarming part of this new age of Genetics. There is also the legal aspect. Did you know that Genes can be and are patented. In fact according to an October 15th, 2005 article in National Geographic, 20% of human genes, at that time, were already patented. The patents are held by primarily by private pharmaceutical firms and universities. The presumed reason to patent genes is to use as research tools, and to develop new drugs. Actually, of the approximately 4000 patented human genes mentioned in the article, one Drug Company in Palo Alto, CA, named Incyte, holds approximately half of all the patents. That's a lot of power in one companies hands.
There is of course a great debate over the ethics, and even common sense of allowing human genes to be patented. In Crichton's story this is carried to the extreme of Biomedical companies claiming they own rights to the genes in a donor's body, and indeed the whole family line, because they have the same DNA, and can extract and use samples from their bodies, since they own it, at any time. If they resisted having these biopsies taken then they could be brought up for criminal charges of stealing or possessing stolen goods. I don't think this has really happened yet, but it is the logical extension of the way the law is currently being interpreted.
So, the whole issue is whether a patent on a gene, which occurs naturally, can be held to be the same as a patent, say on an iPod. Though the particular design of the iPod may be unique, that does not prevent others from developing MP3 players that are similar, to compete with the iPod. There are differences in these kind of patents, on iPods, and patents on genes. For one, genes have been around forever, since there has been life. iPods are an invention by man. Secondly, gene patents are interpreted to not allow anyone to use or do anything with this gene, which means it is a total monopoly. There can be no similar competitive inventions. To carry the analogy further, what if someone patented an ear. Then, any device which used the ear, like speakers, headphones, etc. would have to pay royalties to the holder of the patent for using the 'ear technology'. Clearly, this doesn't make sense, yet gene patent law is leaning in this direction.
Crichton, in his typical fashion, of course makes his novel interesting by, while exposing the controversy of a leading edge technology, also entertaining the reader with suspenseful nail-biting drama. There are humorous parts with Gerard the intelligent and outrageously insolent talking parrot; and the theory that blonds were a genetic mutation in recent pre-history which was a became a genetic marker for more productively child-bearing females. And touching drama of Dave, the transgenetic, part human, part chimp that was trying to make it in the human world with his adopted parents.
Overall, I recommend Next as an entertaining, stimulating and informative read. Read it if you are ready to confront the Brave New World.
posted by Eclectricz at
10:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home