NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, well, it seems that there's demand for a more open resolution that allows anyone access to any naturally occuring genome. I'll make it nice and simple so that it's easy to understand and hard to devise any abstract and trivial criticisms against.


- RIGHT TO GENOMES RESOLUTION -

1) RECOGNISING that knowlege of biological genomes are of immense value to scientists and pharmaceuticals in the development of drugs and treatments.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the A-T-C-G code of the genome of every organism can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.

3) ALLOWING any individual/s right to access the A-T-C-G code of every recorded genome of every organism via a).

a) ESTABLISHING a United Nations Genetic Information Library (UNGIL); an organisation that archives the genomes of all organisms and provides free access to them via the internet or by mail.

4) HOPES that the following measures will increase the range of treatments for genetically linked diseases so that global health at large may improve.


Agreed?

Okay. I'm all for it.

Shouldn't there be some kind of restriction on the use of these genomes?

For instance, if some mad genius decided he wanted to create an army of Arnold Schwarzeneggers (sp?) from his genetic sequence, under this resolution he would be allowed to stroll right into the genome library and get all the information he needed.

Shouldn't there be some kind of restriction on the use of these genomes?

For instance, if some mad genius decided he wanted to create an army of Arnold Schwarzeneggers (sp?) from his genetic sequence, under this resolution he would be allowed to stroll right into the genome library and get all the information he needed.


Or if terrorists, or the government of a rogue nation, wanted the genomes for infectious diseases in order to make bio-weapons?

Right to Gnomes? No thanks. We shoot ours.

Right to Gnomes? No thanks. We shoot ours.

Rewritten for Kenny's amusement:

- RIGHT TO GNOMES RESOLUTION -

1) RECOGNISING that knowlege of biological gnomes are of immense value to scientists and pharmaceuticals in the development of drugs and treatments.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the secret code of the gnome of every variety (lawn et al.) can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.

3) ALLOWING any individual/s right to access the secret code of every recorded gnome of every variety via a).

a) ESTABLISHING a United Nations Gnomic Information Library (UNGIL); an orgnisation that archives the gnomes of all varieties and provides free access to them via the internet or by mail.

4) HOPES that the following measures will increase the range of treatments for gnomically linked diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDs, so that global health may improve.

:p

I would remove the specific examples in clause four, because not all nations have those diseases. I know we operate on a modern tech basis in the UN, but they're just fluff anyway.

Ok it seems like this one is more to peoples liking. At last! ;)

Removed the specific mention of diseases in clause 4.

I'll create the new proposal tomorrow morning, so post some more feedback between now and then.

4) HOPES that the following measures will increase the range of treatments for gnomically linked diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDs, so that global health may improve.See, we knew the Gnomes were sinister, just not this much!

Just a comment to your last post in the other thread. On this forum, we care about the quality of the proposal. We aren't being any softer or harder on you than anyone else's (perhaps more impersonal than if a regular posted a draft). This is how we do things here. I'm sorry if it frustrates you, but it is a belief held by all, and please try to calm down when it comes to the rather continual barrage of criticism.

Right now, I'm supporting a repeal of my own resolution because there were two clauses in particular that were problematic - one being misinterpreted, the other being misconceived. I hold myself to the same standards as everyone else.

We refrained from comment in the debate on the previous draft of this proposal since the tone of the author's postings suggested a reluctance to give due consideration to the objections and suggestions raised. We see this draft, though, as being a good-faith attempt at producing a quality proposal.

We support the intent of the proposal. We do have one technical observation....

The human genome is encoded by nature in DNA. It is not an original work of any person, so it would not qualify for copyright. It is not an invention, therefore, would not qualify for a patent. What could be copyrighted, though, is the result of research into the composition of the genome. We're not sure what the proper term would be: perhaps transcription, description, or something similar. We'll defer to the author on that.

If this issue is resolved satisfactorily, we would gladly support the proposal. We would note, however, that some rearrangement of its clauses, separating out the preambulatory clauses from the operative clauses, would be in order. We would be happy to assist with that, if the author desires.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I would support this proposal if there were restrictions placed on the use of the genetic information.

See, we knew the Gnomes were sinister, just not this much!

They're thieves:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Den_Jay

Or at least some of them were before they were transformed by Silvara.

They're thieves:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Den_Jay

Or at least some of them were before they were transformed by Silvara.Heh! :D They ambushed our president (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Manuelo_Fernanda#Attack_of_the_Gnomes) one fateful evening ...

I definetly think that 3/3a needs some consideration. This is a complete violation of human rights, no one should be able to see genetic information about others without their consent - despite the prementioned threat of a sinister and evil genius using the DNA sequences to create an army of "super-humans" there is also the fear of a two-tier society being formed over those with a superior sequence of genetic information and those with undesirable alleles.

Anyone with inheritable diseases in their genetic information would be shunned (especially from mating) from the forefront of society. There is also a fear of the sterilisation of genetically inferior individuals from nations.

I definetly think that 3/3a needs some consideration. This is a complete violation of human rights, no one should be able to see genetic information about others without their consent - despite the prementioned threat of a sinister and evil genius using the DNA sequences to create an army of "super-humans" there is also the fear of a two-tier society being formed over those with a superior sequence of genetic information and those with undesirable alleles.

Anyone with inheritable diseases in their genetic information would be shunned (especially from mating) from the forefront of society. There is also a fear of the sterilisation of genetically inferior individuals from nations.
Ceorana agrees with these sentiments. We suggest not keying the names with the codes, so it would be possible to see all of the genomes, but not who they belong to.

Okay, the Gnome stuff is amusing, but please quit hijacking.

The question remaining with this Proposal is about artificially created organisms. Unfortunately, my source (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050129/note12.asp) for this requires a subscription, so I'll quote the relevent section:

Scientists have created artificial cells that can live and produce proteins as their natural counterparts do, but can't replicate. Besides providing a new tool for studying the biochemical processes that take place inside real cells, these synthetic structures could be enlisted to churn out pharmaceuticals, says Albert Libchaber of Rockefeller University in New York. This advance also brings researchers closer to creating entirely synthetic organisms with artificial chromosomes, he says.As I'm reading this Proposal, a genome created whole-cloth by someone wouldn't be able to be patented, even though it is clearly the intellectual property of a person or company.

Perhaps it should be limited to naturally occuring genomes?

- RIGHT TO GNOMES RESOLUTION -

1) RECOGNISING that knowlege of biological gnomes are of immense value to scientists and pharmaceuticals in the development of drugs and treatments.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the secret code of the gnome of every variety (lawn et al.) can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.

3) ALLOWING any individual/s right to access the secret code of every recorded gnome of every variety via a).

a) ESTABLISHING a United Nations Gnomic Information Library (UNGIL); an orgnisation that archives the gnomes of all varieties and provides free access to them via the internet or by mail.

4) HOPES that the following measures will increase the range of treatments for gnomically linked diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDs, so that global health may improve.
:p

First problem see is that there is no set requirement for anyone to allow you to gather this information. Thus how do you propose to get it and store it for all in this UNGIL.... You can't suck blood from an armed person who don't want you to suck his blood out so you can test it and get the information from it. Thus you have nothing to put in this UNGIL...

Thus nobody has a patant on it but you don't have it either... As a person; I believe; owns his own body thus all parts there of... does this mean we can't own our body... and do with it as we choose....? Do we have to submit to some test so the UN can get for this UNGIL ours..?

Also see this is as bad as the current one on Cloning. As noted here it opens the door for abuse of the process by not restricting how it all used. Thus we now can get the information for the best to clone and under the other proposal place in it what we want so it will be programed to serve one leader.. or become that leader or one of their hinchmen... Too great a threat possible in this and the other one.. for abuse of what they will do... as nothing in this protects the information from being abused along with the one on cloning (to provide a place to move the memory of national leaders) has no protections set up in it either and it sets that memory from leaders and UN deligates are to be collected and stored.... Thus we have the genetic information and the memories to create those so called super-humans.

Availability of a genome in no way allows an individuals personal genetic makeup to be released to the public, it is the genetic information shared by all members of a specific species.

Also, there seems to be a prevalence of urban myths regarding cloning around here. But just because the information is now available free of charge doesn't mean that suddenyl people are going to be cooking up bio weapons or super soliders, because the actions of scientists are still subject to the laws of the UN and the nationstates.

And if you mean they might do it despite these laws, then there really is no difference before or after the resolution, because even today a company can clone a human being for whatever reason if it wants it bad enough.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the A-T-C-G code of the genome of every organism can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.

What about U, Uracil, which is also sometimes found in DNA?

Uracil is found in RNA only, not DNA, and is almost identical in function to Thyamine, so that's not really a prob.

Ok, I will add to 3a) that the sources of all the DNA is kept completely confidential.

Now it's up! check it out on the list, it's called "RIGHT TO GENOMES"!


- RIGHT TO GENOMES RESOLUTION -

1) RECOGNISING that knowlege of biological genomes are of immense value to scientists and pharmaceuticals in the development of drugs and treatments.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the A-T-C-G (DNA) code of the genome of every organism can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.

3) ALLOWING any individual/s right to access the (DNA) A-T-C-G code of every recorded genome of every organism via a).

a) ESTABLISHING a United Nations Genetic Information Library (UNGIL); an organisation that archives the genomes of all organisms and provides free access to them via the internet or by mail. All sources of the genetic information used for research will be kept confidential and the option of donating anonymously will be available.

4) HOPES that the following measures will increase the range of treatments for genetically linked diseases so that global health at large may improve.

- RIGHT TO GENOMES RESOLUTION -

1) RECOGNISING that knowlege of biological genomes are of immense value to scientists and pharmaceuticals in the development of drugs and treatments.

Here I believe it is likely that all nations, ours included, would agree that the future mapping of the human genome would enormously benefit health agencies and pharmaceticul industries worldwide. By establishign a basis of research and consultation on matters genetic, through ensuring that the genome remains in the public domain, we can further the fight against our worst genetic conditions and the terrible costs of inherited illness, through no fault of the carrier.

Yet why should this only apply to humans? Are not dwarves or other sapient creatures entitled to such protection? Surely it is discriminatory to apply it soley to one species, one race? This is our first concern.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the A-T-C-G (DNA) code of the genome of every organism can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.

Firstly, we must consider that to patent or copyright the genome would be near impossible, not purely because of its ubiquitous nature, but because of the ludicrous difficulties of enforcing such an ownership act. The sentiment is shared, but it is best if we keep this away from precise legal definitions and try and seek to ensure open access to all medical information regarding any genome, without such monolithic terminology.

Equally, even if the DNA code is rendered out of reach of private ownership, what about usage of the RNA codes?

3) ALLOWING any individual/s right to access the (DNA) A-T-C-G code of every recorded genome of every organism via a).

a) ESTABLISHING a United Nations Genetic Information Library (UNGIL); an organisation that archives the genomes of all organisms and provides free access to them via the internet or by mail. All sources of the genetic information used for research will be kept confidential and the option of donating anonymously will be available.

Agreed, yet is the 'organism' term generic (i.e. a species) or specific (all members of that species registered)? If the former, it is agreed, if the latter, opposed on privacy and civil rights grounds.

Compadria agrees that it is essential that exploitation of our most natural and basic element must be avoided and prevented, yet feels that this resolution is too limited and too basic, in order to fulfill such a requirement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Uracil is found in RNA only, not DNA, and is almost identical in function to Thyamine, so that's not really a prob.

Untrue. In some types of viral DNA, Thymine is completely replaced by Uracil, and it's also sometimes found in regular DNA as a result of chemical degradation of Cytosine.

Uracil is found in RNA only, not DNA, and is almost identical in function to Thyamine, so that's not really a prob.

Ok, I will add to 3a) that the sources of all the DNA is kept completely confidential.

Now it's up! check it out on the list, it's called "RIGHT TO GENOMES"!




a) ESTABLISHING a United Nations Genetic Information Library (UNGIL); an organisation that archives the genomes of all organisms and provides free access to them via the internet or by mail. All sources of the genetic information used for research will be kept confidential and the option of donating anonymously will be available.


Tossing it into cyber space will not keep it CONFIDENTIAL.. Also if it free access then it can't be CONFIDENTIAL... How do you propose to control who uses and gets the information from somebody if it hung out for anyone to get. I think I understand this but there are too many possible breeches in this. As anyone who happens to come in contact with any person can get a DNA sample from them then go to this so called open data base and see if they in it or even put them in it. Also once the so called undesirable DNA are sorted out then all one has to do is get a sample to see if anyone is such. As I'm sure the archives will note those with defects and hang them out into pubic space...

Regarding non-human species: There is nothing in this proposal that restricts it's influence to the human genome only. It covers all genomes of all lifeforms. So gnomes and such will benefit too ;)

Just out of curiosity, why did you think it was humans-only?

Regarding uracil: k.

Regarding confidentiality: the sources of DNA used for research is kept confidential, so the identity of the donators are never released and only recorded if consent is given, otherwise, as it says in the proposal, they can donate anonymously.

Besides, the point is pretty much moot, because only the species "genome" is stored by the Library, nothing more, so no information regarding a specific individual is recorded.

So really, don't worry about that.

One problem I see with this-
the idea seems to be to allow access to the genetic information known about all natural organisms.

Minor problems-
*the use of the term DNA rather than "Genetic material" as some organisms use RNA and some inherited traits are passed on through complex protiens in some species of bacteria and virus.
*Fully artificial organisms need to be excluded as they have been created just as a book or technoligical device has been and so should not necicarily be the property of all.

2) DECLARING that any portion of the A-T-C-G code of the genome of every organism can neither be owned, patented or otherwise privatised.


This also causes a problem for the development of any kind of computer or information storage device that might use DNA as a medium for storing information as it might be required that any information stored on deoxyribonucleic acid be released to the public.

Are they RNA in that they are single straded or in that they contain uracil? Because if it's just the former, which I imagine it is, the bracketed (A-T-C-G) in the proposal should cover it.

Ceorana agrees with these sentiments. We suggest not keying the names with the codes, so it would be possible to see all of the genomes, but not who they belong to.

Shouldn't parents be able to get their children's genes checked for potential problems?

We refrained from comment in the debate on the previous draft of this proposal since the tone of the author's postings suggested a reluctance to give due consideration to the objections and suggestions raised. We see this draft, though, as being a good-faith attempt at producing a quality proposal.

We support the intent of the proposal. We do have one technical observation....

The human genome is encoded by nature in DNA. It is not an original work of any person, so it would not qualify for copyright. It is not an invention, therefore, would not qualify for a patent. What could be copyrighted, though, is the result of research into the composition of the genome. We're not sure what the proper term would be: perhaps transcription, description, or something similar. We'll defer to the author on that.

If this issue is resolved satisfactorily, we would gladly support the proposal. We would note, however, that some rearrangement of its clauses, separating out the preambulatory clauses from the operative clauses, would be in order. We would be happy to assist with that, if the author desires.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As stated in the previous debate the government of Telidia concur wholeheartedly with honourable Minister Olembe from The principality of Ausserland, quoted above. We are yet to be convinced any individual, organisation or corporation could claim intellectual, proprietary or patent rights on any genome. To claim any such right the applicant must be able to prove they are the inventor or creator of the genome and in this case it would appear somewhat difficult for anyone to make this claim.

We remain of course respectful of the Damasican delegation and the obvious hard work they have ploughed into this agenda. If they can convince us our objections are not valid, we would be happy to offer our support.

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

Regarding non-human species: There is nothing in this proposal that restricts it's influence to the human genome only. It covers all genomes of all lifeforms. So gnomes and such will benefit too ;).


If they use the same genetic code as us, yes...

TCM of Teid is concerned that allowing everyone access to every genetic code as it may well reduce incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research.

So, on behalf of Teid, I suggest that included in this resolution is the right for companies to buy temporary (in spans of 10 or 25 years) patents that give them exclusive rights to distribution of the drug they discovered/created.

After their copyright has run out, they no longer have exclusive rights.

However, it would be important that the UN encourages a capitalist market, condemning price fixing and other acts that price the poorer out of the drug or treatment.

Am undecided with the resolution as it stands.

Edmund: All life on Earth uses the same basic formula for genetic informaton. You could hypothesise about different genetic codes, but who is to say the same rules would apply or they function in the same way, or that they would be as effective for treatment as DNA is? Unless someone was to create an entire scientific model for each of these hypothesised codes, there's no way one could write a resolution to include them.

Teid: Teid this has nothing to do with the patenting of medication, only the bare bones genetic code. Why would we include a clause regarding corporate patenting of drugs when this resolution has absolutely no effect on those laws anyway?

By the way, the proposal has disappeared off of the UN list :confused:

They only have 3 days to reach quorum; otherwise they get deleted. I advise you to spend more time drafting before resubmitting.

Edmund: All life on Earth uses the same basic formula for genetic informaton. You could hypothesise about different genetic codes, but who is to say the same rules would apply or they function in the same way, or that they would be as effective for treatment as DNA is? Unless someone was to create an entire scientific model for each of these hypothesised codes, there's no way one could write a resolution to include them.

Damasica: Some of the life in NS isn't from Earth...

OOC: The US patenting office (I'm not sure what it's official name is) has ruled that, effectively, all forms of life can be patented, thanks to the travesty of the Chakrabarti/GE decision in 1980(?). It's not unreasonable to assume that someone somewhere will use this to encroach on the territoy of this proposal. I think it's a worthwhile attempt to legislate on the issue.

We hear about the mapping of the genome and the positive impact of such research - and rightly so - but corporate and government interests in this field are frankly terrifying. Yes, it seems absurd that this is even an issue. But it is.

Damasica: Some of the life in NS isn't from Earth...

And? The point remains -.-

Anyway, forget it, I'll leave it Fonzoland to tackle this issue, y'all seem to worship that guy.

And? The point remains -.-

Anyway, forget it, I'll leave it Fonzoland to tackle this issue, y'all seem to worship that guy.

Did someone get out of bed the wrong side this morning? I once said I had 'an organ-stabbing dislike' for Fonzoland. I have no desire to 'worship' other forum posters. I'm interested in their proposals, not them. And I still have severe reservations about this proposal. I think we'd all find it a lot easier to understand if you could come up with one sentence, of not too many words, that simply explained why the genome should be unpatentable. I'm, as you're working on this, trying to develop a total patent system for the whole UN, so this is very relevant to my thoughts: as yet, though, you haven't demonstrated to me a compelling enough case to breach sovereignty in this way.

OmG This will totalies ruin my capitalism y0! wtf there is nothing for ali3ns and gnomes either mate?!?! What About Gimli?! He is my Minister for Haxx0rs! Omg I Will totally NOT endorse this because it is teh most complex propos4l EV0R!!!1!1oneon!1

Right. However, once more we see that you're:
asserting that we need to take fairly strong action without being willing to provide any factual evidence, any strong line of reasoning, or in fact any justification whatsoever for that action;
being excessively aggressive to those who are actually trying to help you;
confusing your own incompetence at communicating your beliefs and objectives with your perception of our inability to understand what you asking us to do;
displaying incredibly childish tendencies, which tend to invalidate your sweeping assumptions about us.

So, I again ask - please - that you explain why genomes should be unpatentable by UN members (and of course still patentable by non-members). And, yes, capitalism is allowed under UN rules.

OmG This will totalies ruin my capitalism y0! wtf there is nothing for ali3ns and gnomes either mate?!?! What About Gimli?! He is my Minister for Haxx0rs! Omg I Will totally NOT endorse this because it is teh most complex propos4l EV0R!!!1!1oneon!1

The attitude displayed by the representative of Damasica speaks volumes about why his proposal failed to reach quorum. If a member authors a proposal, the onus is on him to make the proposal clear, understandable and convincing. The proposal in question failed on all three counts. It's quite easy to sneer at members for being unable to understand what the author was unable to communicate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The attitude displayed by the representative of Damasica speaks volumes about why his proposal failed to reach quorum. If a member authors a proposal, the onus is on him to make the proposal clear, understandable and convincing. The proposal in question failed on all three counts. It's quite easy to sneer at members for being unable to understand what the author was unable to communicate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We recently legalised humor here in Damasica. You just hate our freedoms. I delcare war.

We recently legalised humor here in Damasica. You just hate our freedoms. I delcare war.

Don't try to start a pissing contest. Your joke wasn't funny; oh well. Let's agree to move on, and discuss your proposal. Why shouldn't we be allowed to patent the genome, whilst non-members are?

ooc: Damasica, you may have noticed that some of us support your goals. You're not making it easy, y'know...

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't stand it when people cook up these anal pseudo-scientific criticisms seemingly for the sole purpose of not agreeing with me. I mean come on, "what if they don't use DNA"... well then that's a different issue for a different proposal isn't it?! And why add a clause for drug patenting when this has absolutely no effect on that? Come on people, your making this more complex than it is.

And why do people keep asking me for a single sentence to explain why this resolution is necessery, when there's one at the very beggining of the proposal?!

Ecopoeia: Well, I am the only person here defending the proposal, it would help if the others who understand it would help me out here.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't stand it when people cook up these anal pseudo-scientific criticisms seemingly for the sole purpose of not agreeing with me. I mean come on, "what if they don't use DNA"... well then that's a different issue for a different proposal isn't it?! And why add a clause for drug patenting when this has absolutely no effect on that? Come on people, your making this more complex than it is.

And why do people keep asking me for a single sentence to explain why this resolution is necessery, when there's one at the very beggining of the proposal?!

"RECOGNISING that knowlege of biological genomes are of immense value to scientists and pharmaceuticals in the development of drugs and treatments."

This? This doesn't make it clear why genomes should not be patentable, at all. Just because something is 'valuable' doesn't mean it shouldn't be patented. In fact, many countries do no allow frivolous inventions to be patented; they only allow valuable innovations to be patented. So why should this be so different? I am asking you to make a distinction between everything else - which you seem very keen to keep out of your proposal, and that's fine - and biological genomes.

I have actually made this distinction countless times before, but here, I'll say it again:

Several private businesses are applying for patents for fragments of gene sequences. If these patents are approved, the companies could license their data so researchers would have to pay for access. Many critics believe that would stifle research. This means that less drugs will be developed to treat serious genetic diseases.

It's about as complex as 2+2=4.

I have actually made this distinction countless times before, but here, I'll say it again:

Several private businesses are applying for patents for fragments of gene sequences. If these patents are approved, the companies could license their data so researchers would have to pay for access. Many critics believe that would stifle research. This means that less drugs will be developed to treat serious genetic diseases.

It's about as complex as 2+2=4.

But drug research is very expensive, and primarily organized by big corporations. If we limit their ability to control that research, we stand the risk of their hold breaking down. This isn't simply about corporatism: it's about the fact that drug R&D takes years of research, massive technological investment, mountains of paperwork, and a lorra lorra money. It's actually quite good that there are big pharmaceutical concerns who oversee so much research, because smaller firms just can't maintain the levels of funding necessary. 'Big Pharma' are terribly easy to take digs at: they still produce life-saving drugs. Inhibiting their ability to do that strikes me as excessively counter-productive to the real aim, which should be facilitating cheap, expansive distribution of drugs.

Once again you are assuming the criticism you have just concocted off the top of your head is automatically a valid one.

As a matter of fact, it isn't, and I have stated this time after time after time after time after time after time; THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME HAS ALREADY BEEN MAPPED, and genetic information is readily available from all kinds of organisms. This simply prevents individuals from restricting the use of any part of a gnome to themselves. It has absolutely not effect whatsoever on treatments or R&D that is then done on the genes, simply the genes themselves.

This was made very clear in every singly one of these proposals, therefore I can only assume you either 1) don't understand basic genetic science or 2) have some bizzare intent on stopping this proposal from being passed.

Once again you are assuming the criticism you have just concocted off the top of your head is automatically a valid one.

As a matter of fact, it isn't, and I have stated this time after time after time after time after time after time; THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME HAS ALREADY BEEN MAPPED, and genetic information is readily available from all kinds of organisms. This simply prevents individuals from restricting the use of any part of a gnome to themselves. It has absolutely not effect whatsoever on treatments or R&D that is then done on the genes, simply the genes themselves.

This was made very clear in every singly one of these proposals, therefore I can only assume you either 1) don't understand basic genetic science or 2) have some bizzare intent on stopping this proposal from being passed.

I don't understand basic genetic science: it's your proposal, and it's for you to make it clear to us what's going on. And I don't have any intent on stopping this proposal from being passed: I don't think it needs any help from me to crash and burn, because of the attitude of its author to those who are trying to help him.

Patenting genome sections means the restriction of their use for research purposes. It's all very well having the genome mapped, and having Tom, Dick and Harry being able to look up sections of it: in terms of actual quantitative analysis, one needs to be able to use the genetic material. If it's patented, that can only be done if a licence is granted.

I've given up hope of you explaining why that's wrong. So I'll put it a different way. There are 80,000 UN nations who can patent what they like. Why should we be so different?