Genetic Engineering

Many Pirates are likely to start with a pro-GE position, heavily influenced by the PR spending of biotech corporations, whose massive pro-GE spending rivals that of the companies and individuals funding climate "skeptics", and other anti-environmentalist organisations. I strongly advice listening to and reading the work of a couple of women of colour whose connection to our movement isn't obvious, until you consider that creating GMOs so you can patent life forms is the food equivalent of the move to proprietary software, and needs to be resisted for the same reasons.
* Dr Vandana Shiva speaking speaking at TEDxMasala on 'Solutions to the food and ecological crisis facing us today': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER5ZZk5atlE
* Dr Vijaya Venkat speaking speaking at TEDxMasala on 'Exploring the concept of growth & how women will reshape our future ': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml4Oqa0pMgQ

I suggest that it should be Pirate policy to revoke all life patents, including gene patents, as well as drug patents on the molecular structure of active ingredients. If we allow patents at all (and I think there are good arguments for abolishing them entirely), medical patents should cover only specific methods of manufacturing drugs, medical equipment etc not over bits of chemistry, and be enforceable only against manufacturers, not medical clinics and professionals using drugs or equipment to heal people and save lives. If neither life forms nor molecules were patentable, I think it's self-evident that most biotech corporations would quickly lose interest in pushing GE research, since monopolizing food and drug supply chains is their main motive for being involved with it.

Given that there is a current movement to develop GMO vaccines for diseases such as Diabetes and various cancers, along with other uses such as GMO sterile mosquitos to stop malaria and eventually Zika...
I'm in favour of reasonable progress on open source biology, with of course all life patents becoming invalid.

Speaking of "heavily influenced by the PR spending of biotech corporations"...

Can you supply me with links to any positions statements from vendor-neutral public health organisations saying that GMO is actually a useful and necessary solution to these problems? Any peer-reviewed papers? Any information about any of these projects that does not consist of PR and marketing claims by biotech corporations? If not, I tend to assume that like the RoundUp Ready soya bean, and the BT corn, this is a classic case of a profitable solution (thanks to the patent monopolies currently involved) looking for a problem.

I take a neutral view on Diabetes, well as much as I can with pre-diabetes, in that I view a vaccine for Diabetes as useful and necessary regardless of how it is made.
Of course there are ethical bonus points to be awarded if these are open source research projects, however it maybe that some would prefer the vaccine come from xeno-transplantation from pigs, others may cite religious reasons to go with GMOs.

I would probably be inclined to go with an "all of the above" approach to research and not gamble entirely on one type of project.

I'll take the pro GE position in that I think it is valuable technology and an anti patent position on existing life forms, however support limited patents on created life, as vaccines etc need funding. GE has many variations and links to existing gene science, it isn't in my view a dividing line in knowledge.

GE crops which are the coal face of GE in the marketplace have had mixed success, some have decreased pesticide usage and are successful in their own right, if they fail because farmers are not convinced as to their profitability then that is only par for the course.

I wouldn't watch any videos of Dr Vandana Shiva as she lies constantly and is a shill for the organics industry, she gets paid big time to scaremonger.

Dr Vijaya Venkat, I don't know of but doing a Google search shows another natural health cancer cure promoter and not someone to take seriously.
edited to include Vijaya Venkat name instead of Vandana's name twice.

however support limited patents on created life, as vaccines etc need funding. vaccines etc need funding

This argument rests on the assumption that the money gained through patent monopolies is spend on medical research. In fact, the corporations who hold the lion's share of drug patents and other health-related patents spend more money on marketing than on research. One paper on this is Pharmaceutical Patents: Incentives for Research and Development or Marketing?.

Besides, there are many other ways to provide the resources needed for medical research, including both traditional forms of public funding, governmental and philanthropic funding, as well as more experimental forms like citizen science ([folding@home]) and crowdfunding (including equity crowdfunding). Arguably, these methods are more likely to serve the public interest than corporate driven research, because they can investigate any aspect of human health and illness, rather than limiting their scope to patentable inventions that could make people better once they're already sick, as corporations that make their money from patent monopolies will logically do.

Free code software serves the public interest better than proprietary software, and public health research serves the public better than corporate health research for similar reasons. For one thing, publicly funded research is always peer-reviewed and published, and this can be made a condition of receiving the funding. As Dr Ben Goldacre explains in his TED Talks and (I presume) in his books, corporations only publish papers on research that helps them shift product, and as the tobacco companies did, will conceal research that shows their products might be ineffective or even dangerous. Second, the full datasets from publicly-funded research are also released as open data, or if not the experience of open access advocates like the Public Library of Science is that it's a lot easier to successfully lobby for data to be made open access if the research is publicly-funded.

Again, speaking of "heavily influenced by the PR spending of biotech corporations"...

GE crops... have decreased pesticide usage and are successful in their own right,

Credible references please (ie not propaganda from biotech corporations or the front groups and shills they fund).

I wouldn't watch any videos of Dr Vandana Shiva as she lies constantly and is a shill for the organics industry, she gets paid big time to scaremonger.

You have made three potentially libelous claims here. Please provide some credible evidence for all three (ie not propaganda from biotech corporations or the front groups and shils they fund). Even if your claims are true though, you don't deal with shills by ignoring them, you debunk their claims with evidence.

Libel insinuates that Vindana would be able to sue me which I doubt. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/10/23/rich-allure-vandana-shiva/#.VG7vKfmUeSo
Vijaya Venkat like I say seems to be on the net spouting off about solving cancer with raw foods.

Neither of these two people are credible, they are the paid shills.

"GE crops... have decreased pesticide usage and are successful in their own right." Strangely yes the source is industry based.. these are the people selling less pesticides and now selling BT GMO cotton seeds instead. GMO crops have been going for around 20 years now we are starting to see several trends, increased usage of Roundup and decreased usage of the nastier herbicides that were being used.

The consensus is that GMO is safe.
"No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.[12][13][14] There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[15][16][17] Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage.[18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

Good luck with the open source vaccinations.

Libel insinuates that Vindana would be able to sue me which I doubt.

Publishing a claim that attacks a person's reputation without sufficient evidence is libel. If you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim that Dr Vandana Shiva and Dr Vijaya Venkat are "paid shills", then your claim is libelous.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/10/23/rich-allure-vandana-shiva/#.VG7vKfmUeSo

I asked for a credible source. Keith Kloor is a known shill for pro-GE industry groups, as well as being a climate change "skeptic". I'm still waiting for your evidence of being paid by industry group(s).

Vijaya Venkat like I say seems to be on the net spouting off about solving cancer with raw foods.

Even if Venkat is totally wrong about this, it doesn't prove she's being paid by anyone. I'm still waiting for your evidence of being paid by industry group(s).

Quoting Wikipedia is not evidence. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia page, including shills hired by the biotech industry. What I'm asking for is peer-reviewed scientific evidence or at least statements from credible vendor-neutral groups.

Good luck with the open source vaccinations.

My point is that while publicly-funded health research might discover that there are other ways to reduce the incidence of diseases that are safer, better, and cheaper than vaccination, corporate-controlled research funded by the profits from vaccine patents will always public results that support the sale of new vaccines.

Good luck with the open source vaccinations.

Another real world example. The Open Malaria Consortium:

"invites scientists from around the around to freely share their research on anti-malaria drugs through a transparent, online platform. The hope is to accelerate discovery of new drug candidates to be entered into pre-clinical development. All data and ideas are shared openly. There are no patents."

Where are your real world examples of successful GE and GMO use arising from life patents?