NationStates Jolt Archive

I have drafted a resolution for the complete ban of the privatisation of any part of the human genome within all UN members-states, and the release of the human genome and all intellectual property it contains as public property.

This may not sound particularly significant a proposal, however, it's effects, if passed, would be immense; thousands of phramacuetical companies would be able to work with all scientific data on some of the worlds most terrible diseases and produce new, effective and cheap drugs that can be distrubted throughout the world to people of all economic backgrounds. Death rates of HIV/AIDs and many other STDs would see massive drops in the years following, as Big Pharma's monopoly on treatments withers away.

This resolution proposes a complete ban be enforced by the UN on all member-states from allowing any government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within their jurisdiction from patenting, copyrighting or otherwise privatising any part of the human genome.

This therefore means that the human genome (the genome of Homo sapiens), consisting of all 23 chromosome pairs with a total of ~3 billion DNA base pairs, and the order in which it is transcribed, can not be privatised for the use of individuals only and upon discovery instantly becomes public property.

This will have a dramatic and immediate effect on world reseach and pharmaceuticals; drugs treating some of the worlds most devastating illnesses, such as cancer and AIDs, can be produced en masse by large numbers of pharmaceutical companies, rather than just Big Pharma, and so the price, distribution and selection of treatments will benefit people all over the world and of all economic stature.

Just search for "genome" on the UN proposals list, it's the only result.

Ack. And this is why I really should have got on with that patent proposal.

In any case, by far away the most significant cost aspect of pharmaceuticals - and the reason those nasty bad big pharma concerns own the market - is R&D, not production. Churning out pills is fairly cheap: this is why, IRL, they ship that line of work over to India. The actual development stage, though, with layers of testing, takes many years, and billions of...well, any currency really. I don't really see that this will tackle that at all, or how it will empower small pharmaceutical concerns, or inhibit GruencoWelcome (nor why we would wish to, but that's another debate). Furthermore, you're not touching drug patents, meaning that once Big Beastly Nasty Horrid Drugs Company Inc. has developed its stuff, it can still patent that, and the poor little chaps dying of AIDS in LDC can't afford it, still.

Damasica - you need to do a bit more work on this for it to get anywhere.

Have a look at an old, old attempt of mine (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=311899) for ideas. :)
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

I have drafted a resolution for the complete ban of the privatisation of any part of the human genome within all UN members-states, and the release of the human genome and all intellectual property it contains as public property.

I personally disagree with patenting of fundamental research on the genome. However, your statement is extremely confusing. Last time I checked, the genome included genes, not intelectual property. And if you mean making applied pharmaceutical research patent-free, you will have my strong opposition.

i say that it should be only avalible to offical goverments so privite companies cannot make crazed super soldier that almost destroy the world....THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD!!! Yes i watch too much sci fi...super soldiers away!!!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

i say that it should be only avalible to offical goverments so privite companies cannot make crazed super soldier that almost destroy the world....THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD!!! Yes i watch too much sci fi...super soldiers away!!!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Thank you for your intelligent contribution to the discussion.

While the intent is commendable, a very serious downside of the proposal is that it basically destroys the incentive for pharmaceuticals to do the research. I mean, why research something if everything just goes into public domain anyway? I would suggest that instead of forbidding the patent, mandate it possible for the government of a country to buy the patent for the purpose of putting it into the public domain, possibly even paying extra money over time to the company that discovered it.

Release of the documented human genome as public property would have very little effect on the incentive for phramacueticals. They make their profit by selling it to the market, not by selling their information. This will mean that one company can not monopolise treatments for specific diseases and conditions, yes, but that should be considered a good thing when it means millions will benefit from cheaper drugs with wider distribution.

I will redraft into the template and accomodate the criticisms of the posters above.

Thanks!

EDIT: Hmm, I'm new to this. Is there a way to edit my proposal? Shall I just start a new one?

They make their profit by selling it to the market, not by selling their information. This will mean that one company can not monopolise treatments for specific diseases and conditionsThe information is the treatment. That's why generics and name-brands are exactly the same: they use the same formula. If the formulae -- the information -- is made public the second it is developed, then the companies will have no incentive to develop said information. Without their multi-year monopoly, they won't recoup their upfront costs, which, in America, frequently run as high a billion dollars and 15 years of dedicated research and trials.

This is a bad idea. What reasoning do you have to stifle sciencific research that is saving human lives.

Our nation does not have national sponsored research. All of our medical research is done by private corporations. Thus these companies need a reason to keep making new advances, especially by mapping the human genome. There is no other research that is as promising as this.

This is the equivilant of forcing any other industry to release their trade secrets. Take for example a computer company that designs a silicon free processor. What would stop the UN from saying you must share that with everyone else. I've never seen an emminent domain in the UN charter, or resolutions.

People must realize if these specific resolutions are passed they open the door for further restrictions on life in the UN. Mainly be setting precident.

The last two posters need not be concerned.

You seem to misunderstand. This resolution does not propose the release of information regarding the "treatments" be released, but simply the base code of the human genome (A-T-C-G) is released as public infomation and can not be patented.

This information sir eadily available to all manind, it exists in every cell in our body and can easily be transcribed, however some pharmaceutical companies have patented certain genes within the code, for exmaple to treat breast cancer, so that only they may produce treatments based on it.

This does not restrict the patenting of medication or the research done by pharmacueticals on the genome, simply the genome its self. This reslution is economically sound for all pharmaceuticals, except those that hold mnonopoly over the medication for certain diseases (which allows them to drive up costs and fruther the spread of genetically linked diseases in the 3rd world).

In fact, this reslution, if passed, would be a huge economic boom to all nations, as many smaller pharmaceuticals would then be able to begin their own R&D on drugs and treatments based on the human genome.

The final version of the proposal can be found by searching for "human genome" in the proposal list.

I'm not going to continue to argue the economics of this, it's not really my concern, and I'd just assume avoid political debate. However,

The final version of the proposal can be found by searching for "human genome" in the proposal list.Please post the Proposal here, in its entirety, including category and strength. It's considered good form, and it makes debate much easier.

I have drafted a resolution for the complete ban of the privatisation of any part of the human genome within all UN members-states, and the release of the human genome and all intellectual property it contains as public property.
This may not sound particularly significant a proposal, however, it's effects, if passed, would be immense; thousands of phramacuetical companies would be able to work with all scientific data on some of the worlds most terrible diseases and produce new, effective and cheap drugs that can be distrubted throughout the world to people of all economic backgrounds. Death rates of HIV/AIDs and many other STDs would see massive drops in the years following, as Big Pharma's monopoly on treatments withers away.
Just search for "human genome" on the UN proposals list, it's the only result.


Why only the human genome? Quite a few NS nations include various species of sapient non-humans amongst their inhabitants, and in fact there's currently a proposed Resolution at vote to guarantee those species the equivalent of 'human rights'...

The information is the treatment. That's why generics and name-brands are exactly the same: they use the same formula. If the formulae -- the information -- is made public the second it is developed, then the companies will have no incentive to develop said information. Without their multi-year monopoly, they won't recoup their upfront costs, which, in America, frequently run as high a billion dollars and 15 years of dedicated research and trials.

There should be a distinction between applied research, which leads directly to creation of new treatments, and fundamental resarch, which only serves as an input for future research. ADN mapping seems to fall under the second category, and should not be protected any more than a mathematical theorem.

I don't believe the issue would even be on the table in countries like RL USA if it had a significant impact on Pharma.

RECOGNISING that the human genome, that being all 23 chromosome pairs with all of ~3 billion DNA base pairs, is property of all humankind.

ACKNOWLEDGING that any government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within the jurisdiction of a member-state being able to patent, copyright or otherwise privatise any part of the human genome is inethical and hinders the production and distribution of of treatments for genetically linked diseases such as HIV/AIDs throughout the world.

DECLARES that no government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within the jurisdiction of a member-state can be able to patent, copyright or otherwise privatise any part of the human genome.

REQUIRING that the every base comdination in the human genome is and will instantly be released as public property.

FURTHER REQUIRES that no government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within the jurisdiction of a member-state can prosecute or prohibit another individual/s from developing drugs based on this publicly owned information.

HOPES that the following measures will decrease the mononpoly Big Pharma has over treatments for genetically linked diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDs, so that smaller pharmaceuticals can enter the market and drive medication costs down and distribution up.

Fonzoland: The distinction between fundemental and applied research is very explicit in the proposal. Only the genome its self is void from patent, nothing more, and there can be no misinterpretation.

Edmund: Good point, and I considered that, however people tend to shy away from dramatic proposals like that. You could then say "why be able to patent anything living?" and then "why be able to patent anything organic" or "scientific" and finally "why patent anything at all?". Of course, then you hit the big question, that of privatisation. Of course privatisation is a fundementally flawed concept, but you and I both know that not 10% of the active NS community will go the whole hog and outlaw privatisation, because that would be privatising private enterprise capitalism.

This is just one small step toward making the world a better place, as is the nature of the UN.

I think it deserves universal approval, it is both morally and economically secure.

Since most of the Genetics and Scientific industries in optischer are government owned, this would be a welcome addition. This means we can finally claim back some of our most valuable information from money grabbing corporations. I would hate to see corporations ending up releasing a Resident Evil type disease in Optischer.

You should separate the argument from the operative part.

RECOGNISING that the human genome, that being all 23 chromosome pairs with all of ~3 billion DNA base pairs, is property of all humankind.

Ambiguous statement. First, you do not make clear what you are addressing: information about the sequencing of DNA, ie intelectual property. Second, your "property of humanity" claim is debatable and stands unfounded.

ACKNOWLEDGING that any government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within the jurisdiction of a member-state being able to patent, copyright or otherwise privatise any part of the human genome is inethical and hinders the production and distribution of of treatments for genetically linked diseases such as HIV/AIDs throughout the world.

Spell checking would be nice. Again, calling something unethical it is dogmatic rather than argumentative.

DECLARES that no government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within the jurisdiction of a member-state can be able to patent, copyright or otherwise privatise any part of the human genome.

It is simpler and safer to state something cannot be patented, without listing entities. The genome is not created by man, so copyright seems irrelevant here.

REQUIRING that the every base comdination in the human genome is and will instantly be released as public property.

Spelling, preambulatory after operative, inadequate terminology, possibly redundant. In short, the clause from hell.

FURTHER REQUIRES that no government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within the jurisdiction of a member-state can prosecute or prohibit another individual/s from developing drugs based on this publicly owned information.

Partly redundant. If they are not allowed to own the thing, how could they sue? On the other hand, the government should be allowed to restrict genetic testing. I have to call NatSov on that one.

HOPES that the following measures will decrease the mononpoly Big Pharma has over treatments for genetically linked diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDs, so that smaller pharmaceuticals can enter the market and drive medication costs down and distribution up.

Uh? Following measures? And for the love of God, who is Big Pharma, what is a mononpoly, have you shot your economist yet?

Sorry for being so critical, I do think this shows promise. But it needs work.

Well, I think I made it clear throughout the proposal that this refers to the fundemental research only and nothing more. I didn't think that could be misunderstood, I was very specific about the exact nature of the gnome even.

Big Pharma is simple short hand for ""big pharmaceutical companies", it's used widely in both industry and the media.

By monopoly I mean exactly that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary: a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller.

Spelling and grammar errors I completely accept ;) But in terms of semantics I think it's fine.

Any advise on a more explicitly worded version? Quote some rewritten scentances if you like.

Big Pharma is simple short hand for ""big pharmaceutical companies", it's used widely in both industry and the media.
it may be in RL, but
a) this is NS
b) this isnt the industry
c) this isnt the media

this is the NSUN, and you have to use the full words, not industry jargon, otherwise you will get a lot of :confused:

Big Pharma is simple short hand for ""big pharmaceutical companies", it's used widely in both industry and the media.

By monopoly I mean exactly that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary: a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller.

Exercise #1: Try to find the contradiction between your two definitions.

i wont wade into this debate too much, but i will say this. i do support the idea that the Human Genome shouldnt be patented, and that the information should be freely available, not in the hands of private companies. that being said, there could be problems and ramafications as i have read in previous posts. i dont really know enough about that side of things, so i will leave it to others. it just doesnt seem like the kind of thing that should be exploited, but the ban should only be restricted to the genome and information about it itself, not the research and benifits that universities, government health agencies and pharmaceutical companies gain from utilising the information.

This resolution proposes a complete ban be enforced by the UN on all member-states from allowing any government, business, corporation or indepentant organisations within their jurisdiction from patenting, copyrighting or otherwise privatising any part of the human genome.

This I suppose only applies to HUMANS thus would not effect others that might come under the current resolution up for proposal so it due to the lack of including them all discriminates against HUMANS who might want to get a patent on their own genome.. Thus needs to include all so called living things not just humans to cover them all in one. This would prevent later coming out and doing the same for say dogs, cats, rats, those weird green guys, and big eyed gray ones.


This therefore means that the human genome (the genome of Homo sapiens), consisting of all 23 chromosome pairs with a total of ~3 billion DNA base pairs, and the order in which it is transcribed, can not be privatised for the use of individuals only and upon discovery instantly becomes public property.

Again deals only with humans so those not human can patent their DNA..


This will have a dramatic and immediate effect on world reseach and pharmaceuticals; drugs treating some of the worlds most devastating illnesses, such as cancer and AIDs, can be produced en masse by large numbers of pharmaceutical companies, rather than just Big Pharma, and so the price, distribution and selection of treatments will benefit people all over the world and of all economic stature.

What proof have you of this as most company only deal with what they can make a profit off of so how by taking their patent on it away and them losing profit will they come to do anything with it. Also it's not the DNA that has a patent on it but how they might read, test, and deal with it that does.. So how does this; if it only bans patents on the DNA keep me from getting one on a patent that say reads it and finds certain bugs in it.. then doing something to correct the defects. Say a drug or machine that might alter the bad parts of the DNA.. If one can't get a patent thus control profits off it they will not bother to make it or even look for it...

This proposal is one has need to be worked on.. Thus we could not support it in it's current form...

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon

What proof have you of this as most company only deal with what they can make a profit off of so how by taking their patent on it away and them losing profit will they come to do anything with it.


If it would please the assembly, the ambassador from The United Socialist States of Theoretics would like to address this question.

While in a capitolist society, the primary motivation among companies might be monetary gain, in our nation the greatest honor is in scientific achievement for the good of all humankind.

We are a socialist nation, and we have managed to keep things balanced thus far. In the event that any of our researchers were to discover a method of gene therapy that would be of any immediate, peaceful benefit to the world, that discovery would be made public and readily available to the scholars of the world immediately.

In fact, were our brightest minds to find anything immediately and immensely beneficial, such as a cure or vaccine for HIV, then we would undoubtedly immediately begin mass production of doses to distribute to the regions of the world suffering most from such a plague.

Humankind's well being is our first and chief concern, and we persist happily in the belief that we are not alone in that mission.

Thus while the proposal at hand may block one potential for profit among enterprising nations and corporations, it does not immediately suggest that the related science would be abandoned.

The USST pledges its complete support of this proposition in whatever final form it takes, but there is one question in mind.

It would be unfortunate if genome sequences based upon the human genome but heavily altered for purposes of specialized breeding could not be patented. Such sequences are controversial, and also unrequired for the continuance of humankind's healthy state of being. While they could potentially improve quality of life, the blocking of an entire branch of science to commercial purposes would likely hinder worldwide progress in new developments if not carefully constructed.

RECOGNISING that the human genome, that being all 23 chromosome pairs with all of ~3 billion DNA base pairs, is property of all humankind.

Shouldn't this apply to all species recognised as citizens under their respective constitutions? NS populations ain't just humans, after all.

Well, I can see two main criticisms of the proposal here:

1) Should the patent ban be widened to apply to other lifeforms: I addressed this earlier and basically said that I thought it would be best to start with the human genome and then later begin to widen the laws to include other/all species.

Why? Well, simply because this is how it would occur in the real UN. Countries tend to hy away from big decisions that don't seem immediatly important to them, and so it can be more effective to pass a number of small resolutions. If a resolution to ban all patents on organic molecules and lifeforms was rejected, the subject could not be raised for many years, but if his resolution was first passed, supporters of a total ban would be able to say "if not humans, why anything else?", and argue points based on the effects of a resolution like this one.

I totally agree with you though, I don't think any genome should be patented.

2) There seems to be a lot of people worried that this resolution would inable businesses or individuals to patent the research theydo on the human genome or the the drugs they create from that research. Like I said, it is ecplicitly clear that this is NOT the case. Only the A-T-C-G base code of the human genome would be void from patent.

Here is an anology: nobody can patent plain paper, but they can patent the words they write on it. Nobody would accept that patenting paper be allowed because it would prevent billions of people freely learning, teaching, creating, expressing themselves etc., but the intellectual property derived from it can be patented.

So like I said, please don't worry about that, it's not an issue.

1) Should the patent ban be widened to apply to other lifeforms: I addressed this earlier and basically said that I thought it would be best to start with the human genome and then later begin to widen the laws to include other/all species.

Actually, I was pointing out that you'd need to protect certain other species as well as humans ['those regarded as citizens'] because this is the Nationstates UN and you'd have an Elf representative step up and demand to know what was so damn special about the human genome otherwise. :P

Well, I can see two main criticisms of the proposal here:

There were plenty more in my previous post. And I actually support your main intention.

1) Should the patent ban be widened to apply to other lifeforms: I addressed this earlier and basically said that I thought it would be best to start with the human genome and then later begin to widen the laws to include other/all species.

You would need to at least include all sapient species, eg elfs, dwarves, gnomes, whatever. So, while you are at it, you might as well declare all genomes free.

Why? Well, simply because this is how it would occur in the real UN. Countries tend to hy away from big decisions that don't seem immediatly important to them, and so it can be more effective to pass a number of small resolutions. If a resolution to ban all patents on organic molecules and lifeforms was rejected, the subject could not be raised for many years, but if his resolution was first passed, supporters of a total ban would be able to say "if not humans, why anything else?", and argue points based on the effects of a resolution like this one.

There is a problem with duplicating legislation. The repeal and replace mechanism is currently very cumbersome. So you would have no choice than to start with human, then make one for non-human animals, then another one for vegetables, then god knows what, in order not to duplicate previous resolutions. If you are passing it, it is much better to make it general: I don't think that many votes would swing on scope alone.

2) There seems to be a lot of people worried that this resolution would inable businesses or individuals to patent the research theydo on the human genome or the the drugs they create from that research. Like I said, it is ecplicitly clear that this is NOT the case. Only the A-T-C-G base code of the human genome would be void from patent.

Here is an anology: nobody can patent plain paper, but they can patent the words they write on it. Nobody would accept that patenting paper be allowed because it would prevent billions of people freely learning, teaching, creating, expressing themselves etc., but the intellectual property derived from it can be patented.

First, I agree with the principle you are trying to describe. Second, don't go into a debate on these issues without reviewing the differences between patent and copyright. Third, if plain paper was invented now, it could be patented.

Well, regarding the other sentient species, if someone wants to go ahead and propose a resolution to ban patents on their genomes, go for it, but this is keeping it simple.

If plain paper was invented today, it probably would be patented, but should it be? We can see just how phenomenally beneficial paper has been to the human race, why should we let patents keep current technology from doing the same?

I accept all your criticisms and points, but I don't think they are enough to warrent another replacement proposal. If people would like patent bans on a wider scope, then go ahead and create a proposal, I will definately endorse, but this is simply for the human genome.

Well, regarding the other sentient species, if someone wants to go ahead and propose a resolution to ban patents on their genomes, go for it, but this is keeping it simple.

If plain paper was invented today, it probably would be patented, but should it be? We can see just how phenomenally beneficial paper has been to the human race, why should we let patents keep current technology from doing the same?

I accept all your criticisms and points, but I don't think they are enough to warrent another replacement proposal. If people would like patent bans on a wider scope, then go ahead and create a proposal, I will definately endorse, but this is simply for the human genome.

You see, that is the sort of stuff that can destroy your support base. You want to make a piece of fundamental science patent-free. Fine. Then you start claiming that patents should not be given for influential inventions. And you lose all but the most ardent (brainwashed?) allies.

So, to make it clear: some of my criticism was purely on form, some was on ambiguity, some was on content. Most of the points I made would prevent me from supporting it, yet not all of them. Submit whatever you want, I will decide when it comes to vote.

Sorry to butt in, but is the Nationstates Genome Project (if there is one) a international or corporate discovery? Because then it would make up a few minds.

While the government of Telidia support the aim of the proposal and commend the honourable member from Damasica in highlighting the issue, we remain somewhat at a loss as to its relevance. Patents are granted for new inventions, which can either be a method for doing something or a formula in the case of medicines. Now if I am not mistaken I think we will be very hard pushed to find the inventor who created the human genome in the first place. That is the only ‘person’ who would have any legitimate claim to a patent in my humble opinion.

If there is real concern in this area then may I suggest the problem does not lay with the protection of the genome itself, but rather the criteria and definitions of patent law among member states? Thus perhaps time would be better spent on a resolution to standardise patent criteria among members to ensure cohesion.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

if the honorable speaker is talking about tighter laws then we will support. If looser laws, then we will oppose. If most likely just submitting their views and solutions, we would engage talks.

Although we believe in the principles behind this proposal, the people of Kernwaffen cannot and will not support any effort to try and usurp private corporations in their attempt to make money and provide better drugs and healthcare, even if that means making the treatment itself more expensive.

(IRL: there are private corporations that are doing research in the Human genome and are in a race to discover as many genes as possible and patent them before the pubicly funded teams find them and realease their info, as of right now, I believe the private sector might be in the "lead" with more patented than not, but most of those who actually use the genes are drug companies and can afford the fees they have to pay to use the gene info)

kernwaffle, I do believe that the author of this proposal is speaking about recreational drugs and not medical drugs. But that leads me to my next question, What about recreational drugs being used for medical reasons?

Edmund: Good point, and I considered that, however people tend to shy away from dramatic proposals like that. You could then say "why be able to patent anything living?" and then "why be able to patent anything organic" or "scientific" and finally "why patent anything at all?". Of course, then you hit the big question, that of privatisation. Of course privatisation is a fundementally flawed concept, but you and I both know that not 10% of the active NS community will go the whole hog and outlaw privatisation, because that would be privatising private enterprise capitalism.

This is just one small step toward making the world a better place, as is the nature of the UN.


We disagree with you about general economics, and also about the UN...

It is simpler and safer to state something cannot be patented, without listing entities. The genome is not created by man, so copyright seems irrelevant here.


Unless any deity or alien species wishes to apply for the copyright, with proof that it created humanity, I presume? ;-)

bUT THEN HOW COULD THEY MAKE THEIR OWN GENOMES ASSUMING THEY HAD ANY WHICH IS MOST LIKELY IN ALIENS?

H'mm, and what about patents on deliberate modifications [for specified purposes] to the Human genome?

Well that should rest with the person wishing to be modified as they are his or hers or it's or (place name of genders or gender equivalents here) genomes and no-ones elses, since they are intelligent enough to know what this modification is and what it does.

H'mm, and what about patents on deliberate modifications [for specified purposes] to the Human genome?

In my opinion, any genetic modifications, or drugs influencing the genome, should still be subject to patent law.

At the heart of this proposal is an eminently sensible aim. I encourage the Damasican ambassador to give more thought to the suggestions made by the delegates from Fonzoland and Theoretics.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

In my opinion, any genetic modifications, or drugs influencing the genome, should still be subject to patent law.

I agree.

But what if due to patent, the people needing the modifications the most could not receive them?

If you choose not to endorse this proposal so that private companies can continue making maximum profit at the expense of the effective treatment of genetic linked diseases around the world by humanity as a whole, then you are fundementally at odds with both my personal opinions and I believe, human rights. However, that is of course your opinion on the matter, but it's so at odds with the very nature of this proposal it's unlikely you would endorse it in any form.

To those who endorsed this in the hope that it may trigger further tighter laws on the dealings of private businesses, that could very well be the case but it is not the sole aim of the proposal and it's effects on later UN resolutions is purely determined by the UN at large.

This resolution would allow smaller drug companies, many in the third world, access to human genome and able them to create medication to treat some of the devastating diseases that continue to plague our species.

This will then increase the number of drug companies producing treatment, driving the price down, increasing he distribution and thereforeincreasing the number of sufferers who have access to the treatment. This will dramatically lower the rates of all genetically linked diseases around the world.

This will also vastly increase the opportunity for well paid jobs in the many smaller pharmaceutical companies who will now be able to compete against the onopoly of Big Pharma.

And in defence of my use of the term "Big Pharma", the term is used on medical reseacrch papers, corporate documents and legal documents. I see absolutely no reason it shouldn't be fine for us in a UN proposal.

The copyright ban included in this proposal, I believe, is very important. A loop hole in the entire concept is that the human genome is always changing, and genetic mutations could be induced by an individual to create a certain gene, and then copyrighted. By banning copyright on the human genome this basically prevents that from being exploited.

The proposal now has over 30 endorsements, so thanks to all you guys! Now anyone else reading this, let's drive this baby home and force a new situation for the treatment of genetic linked diseases around the world, for the sake of the economy and more importantly, human lives.

This will then increase the number of drug companies producing treatment, driving the price down, increasing he distribution and thereforeincreasing the number of sufferers who have access to the treatment.While ignoring the upfront costs of developing said treatment...

The copyright ban included in this proposal, I believe, is very important. A loop hole in the entire concept is that the human genome is always changing,Um... you really should look up "genome"... A genome sequence is taken from a single chromosome. Most mutations deal with how chromosomes line up.

If you choose not to endorse this proposal so that private companies can continue making maximum profit at the expense of the effective treatment of genetic linked diseases around the world by humanity as a whole, then you are fundementally at odds with both my personal opinions and I believe, human rights. However, that is of course your opinion on the matter, but it's so at odds with the very nature of this proposal it's unlikely you would endorse it in any form.

To those who endorsed this in the hope that it may trigger further tighter laws on the dealings of private businesses, that could very well be the case but it is not the sole aim of the proposal and it's effects on later UN resolutions is purely determined by the UN at large.

I don't disagree with you about banning copyright on the actual Human genetic sequences, but that's because the information concerned is only something that the scientists have collected rather than something that they've originated and therefore (in my opinion) should no more be copyrightable than -- for example -- anybody's list of NS nations arranged by regions should be: What I do disagree with is your apparently Socialist prejudice against private enterprise in general...

Well this isn't a proposal of universal socialist revolution is it? Surely it would be prejudice to unapprove this proposal because of my personal beliefs?

*snip*

The proposal now has over 30 endorsements, so thanks to all you guys! Now anyone else reading this, let's drive this baby home and force a new situation for the treatment of genetic linked diseases around the world, for the sake of the economy and more importantly, human lives.

OK, I made an attempt to turn this into something supportable, but apparently you either don't understand or disagree with most of my points. So yes, I will not support this idea in any shape, colour, or form. Removing patents from medical research completely destroys the incentives to finance such research, and as such freezes medical progress.

It is a pity, your basic idea about the genome could be defended in much more reasonable grounds. By the way, your economics sucks.

Look, I'm not going to let you turn this into a flame war, but I don't know how many times I have to spell it out to you, this proposal does not restrict patents on the research or treatments, ONLY THE A-T-C-G CODE OF THE HUMAN GENOME. How could anyone ever possibly be more explicit than that? How could anyone possibly misunderstand this?!?!

Your points are, to quote the wikipedia phrase, complete bollocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BALLS). The only reason for you to continue your weightless criticisms I can think of is that maybe you just want to be seen as some kind of super-authority on proposal here, always shaping every resolution in whatever non-critical way you can.

But what's worse is that people may actually be refraining from endorsing this proposal because of your incessent whining. So let me spell it out nice and simple:

This proposal restricts the patenting of A-T-C-G code of the human genome. This is as explicit as one can describe the human genome, and in no way could it ever be interperated as a ban on patenting of research or treatments made by private businesses.

Please people, don't be put off by Fonzoland, he is making a complete meal out of nothing, I assure you. This is one of the most basic and specific proposals I have ever seen on NationStates, and he really has no argument.

Although, it has already made it onto the front page of the proposal list, with over 50 endorsements, so it seems nobody needs him to turn this into anything anyway.

Agreed, I can't see anything wrong with this proposal, and all I see from Fonzo is hot air.

Well this isn't a proposal of universal socialist revolution is it? Surely it would be prejudice to unapprove this proposal because of my personal beliefs?

I wouldn't be voting against it just because of your personal beliefs, I'd be votingagainst it because _
1/. I think that it's based on the wrong arguments.
2/. I think that parts of it are badly worded, such as the reference to "the human genome" as becoming public property when what actually seems to have been intended (and would be more supportable) would be "knowledge about the sequence of bases in the human genome, and what effects the genes have"... As written, this proposal would actually give "the public" -- presumably acting through their governments -- ownership of everybody's genes, with all of an owner's normal property-rights to sell, modify or destroy these... Also, there are some humans (for example those with Downs' Syndrome) who don't actually have the [complete] 23 pairs of chromosomes to which you refer, so that how their genomes would be affected is unclear from the wording of this proposal...
3/. It's speciesist, inasmuch as it only seeks to protect the human genome but NS contains quite a few species of sapient non-humans too and their genomes would remain unprotected.
4/. I don't wish to seem to endorse your misunderstanding (which other people have already pointed out) about how the pharmaceutical industry's R&D programmes work.


Oh, and then there's its reference to "the world" whereas it's actually well-established that the nations of NS are spread across many different worlds...

I wouldn't be voting against it just because of your personal beliefs,

If your vote was at all effect by my personal beliefs, then that would be very irresponsible of you as a UN delegate.

1/. Does it matter what arguments it's based on when the actual proposal benefits people of many different persuasions?
2/. The first part of this point I accept, maybe I can get a moderator to remove the reference to "public property"? The second part doesn't hold when you consider that it restricts the patenting to the A-T-C-G code in whatever combination, in human organisms.
3/. This isn't a reason not to endorse this proposal, only a reason to create another proposal that is more encompassing.
4/. Quite simple really, there is no misunderstanding, under tis resolution a pharma can not restrict another pharma from producing a drug based on a certain part of the genetic code, and so more pharmaceutical companies, who may not have had the money to liscence use of the A-T-C-G code of the genome from whoever owned it to R&D new drugs, can produce treatments and increase competition.


Oh, and then there's its reference to "the world" whereas it's actually well-established that the nations of NS are spread across many different worlds...

... um, ok, add an "s" to "world"?

I admit there are a few minor points, but mostly to do with semantics. I really don't think it requires another new proposal, but maybe a mod can let me reword it a little so it's a little more compliant with the "nationstates universe"?

I admit there are a few minor points, but mostly to do with semantics. I really don't think it requires another new proposal, but maybe a mod can let me reword it a little so it's a little more compliant with the "nationstates universe"?

No, they can't edit proposals. When yours fails to reach quorum, you can resubmit it with the corrections. But you might wait for more feedback before doing that.

ONLY THE A-T-C-G CODE OF THE HUMAN GENOME. How could anyone ever possibly be more explicit than that? How could anyone possibly misunderstand this?!?!Then why do you keep going on about evil pharmaceutical companies causing human suffering because they patent treatments?

Look, I'm not going to let you turn this into a flame war,Everyone here, save you, has been perfectly calm. If there's any danger of flaming errupting, it's from your corner.

-.-

Again, if I said "patent treatments", it was a mistake, but is not reflected in the proposal so does not warrent a dispproval.

And as for your flame war point, what are you talking about? I am only annoyed since Fonzoland started getting all high and mighty and saying my economics sucked. Why would you say that to me? Especially a moderator! Have you not read the thread?

I fear the gnome-at-arms is going to get involved here...

Again, if I said "patent treatments", it was a mistake, but is not reflected in the proposal so does not warrent a dispproval.So we can disregard things like this?
If you choose not to endorse this proposal so that private companies can continue making maximum profit at the expense of the effective treatment of genetic linked diseases around the world by humanity as a whole,

And as for your flame war point, what are you talking about?I'm talking about your yelling:How could anyone ever possibly be more explicit than that? How could anyone possibly misunderstand this?!?!

I am only annoyed since Fonzoland started getting all high and mighty and saying my economics sucked.It would appear that he believes that your economic views are deeply flawed. Probably stemming from your claims that eliminating patents would somehow spur development, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Why would you say that to me? Especially a moderator!This makes absolutely no sense. You seem to be the one closest to flaming and I stated as much. I would have thought that my status as a Moderator demands that I make such comments. Or are Moderators not supposed to alert players when it seems like they're about to flame?

Or, perhaps, you hold the view that Moderators are automatons who are not allowed to have their own opinions, much less state them?

Or, perhaps, you hold the view that Moderators are automatons who are not allowed to have their own opinions, much less state them?

You're mean you're not an automaton? I always pictured you looking like this:

http://img494.imageshack.us/img494/5862/028vl.jpg

:p

No, but I am a zombie:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/zombiehack.jpg

If your vote was at all effect by my personal beliefs, then that would be very irresponsible of you as a UN delegate.

Did I forget to include an "OOC:" there? *(Checks detail)* Okay, for future reference, when I say "I" rather than "we" or "the government of St Edmund" -- in any thread on this forum -- I can generally be assumed to be talking out-of-character unless context obviously indicates otherwise...

1/. Does it matter what arguments it's based on when the actual proposal benefits people of many different persuasions?

A/. Proposals based on faulty arguments may prove more easily repealed.
B/. Speaking as a scientist rather than a politician, I prefer to see accurate arguments used.

3/. This isn't a reason not to endorse this proposal, only a reason to create another proposal that is more encompassing.

But if this resolution were to be passed before that other one was ready then that other one might be declared illegal due to either a 'House of Cards' violation or the no-amendments rule... (I presume that you have read the official rules about proposals, yes?)

4/. Quite simple really, there is no misunderstanding, under tis resolution a pharma can not restrict another pharma from producing a drug based on a certain part of the genetic code, and so more pharmaceutical companies, who may not have had the money to liscence use of the A-T-C-G code of the genome from whoever owned it to R&D new drugs, can produce treatments and increase competition.

The vast majority of the costs would almost certainly lie in designing & testing the treatments, not in any licence fees: Bear in mind that because there are so many thousands of nations in NS (both inside & outside of the UN) research along these lines is almost certainly happening more-or-less simultaneously in many different lands, providing multiple sources for the information, so that competition between sellers would drive those fees down...

... christ alive I'll write a god damn revision. But please, take some anti-persnickety pills all of you would ya? Jesus.