Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - sketchysketchist (06/17/2013) [-]
**sketchysketchist rolled a random image posted in comment #140 at This guy **

All we need now, is the supreme court to say that you can't patent any genes whatsoever so science can develop cures for cancer and more genetic diseases.
User avatar #86 to #4 - wishingwell (06/17/2013) [-]
actually the ruling cover all DNA - that's all living organisms on earth.

- so they have to change parts of it imho, if we still want to make biofuel more efficient, or release spores to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere etc
#31 to #4 - pappathethird (06/17/2013) [-]
Wher ... where ... where's the dude in the water? Who would be so cruel as to photoshop him out? WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THIS?
User avatar #8 to #4 - sodrant (06/17/2013) [-]
Actually, pharmaceutical companies usually don't make money off of their drugs unless they are patented.

If they decided to make patenting all genes illegal (synthetic or not) we would have cures, but no one would make them.
User avatar #10 to #8 - sketchysketchist (06/17/2013) [-]
I think it should be like any business.
You charge for the cost making the product and extra for the profit.
Other than that, you shouldn't have complete ownership of a specific thing.
But I'm wrong seeing that Coca cola has kept it's recipe secret for decades and it'd be wrong if we demanded they share it with the rest of the world because.
#11 to #10 - trickytrickster (06/17/2013) [-]
If you develop a drug, it usually costs billions to bring to market after all the tests, etc. A lot of drugs fail, and the companies take a huge hit on that too. If patents didn't exist, drugs would cost a **** ton.
-1
#12 to #11 - autoxx has deleted their comment [-]
#113 to #12 - trickytrickster (06/17/2013) [-]
Dude...none of this is true haha. It takes 10+ years for a drug to get approved by the FDA. Patents only last for 20 years, so by the time the drug is on the market, they only have 10 years to cover the cost of the drug and to make a profit. After the patent is over, a generic version of the drug gets made. Read this.

articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-07-11/national/35267296_1_generic-drugs-manufacturers-of-brand-name-drugs-pharmaceutical-companies
User avatar #17 to #12 - zappasc **User deleted account** (06/17/2013) [-]
The generic versions are much cheaper because PRODUCING the medicin is not very exspensive, compared to ******* INVENT it.

Thats what pharmaceutical companies does. They acutally INVENT medicin, and you have NO idea how much **** it has to go through before it can be released to the public (with good reason).
#5 to #4 - trickytrickster (06/17/2013) [-]
If you create a brand new gene that doesn't naturally occur in humans you deserve to patent it. Naturally occurring genes that you isolated is stupid though, and I agree with the supreme court.

However, non naturally occurring genes wouldn't really have anything to do with cures for that stuff.
User avatar #6 to #5 - sketchysketchist (06/17/2013) [-]
Actually, they've made mice specifically to test cancer cures on.
And people have patented them and made it so the usage of these mice or making your own cost money.
#7 to #6 - trickytrickster (06/17/2013) [-]
Oh, that is what you were getting at. Ya, knockout mice etc. It's tough because these scientists do a lot of research etc to come up with these techniques and stuff, and it's not really fair to refuse them compensation for their efforts.
User avatar #9 to #7 - sketchysketchist (06/17/2013) [-]
True.
Though I think it has it's downsides seeing how everyone wants their hands on it to use it to find the cure and take credit for it, and they'd rather make more money than make it so someone can make the world better.
But I guess it's right that they do get compensated for their part.
#15 to #9 - selfrazedzealot (06/17/2013) [-]
There should be a section that says you can't hinder the improvement of mankind for money. they should patent it but companies should be able to use it in private and release it publically when they better the thing without paying the previous person
 Friends (0)