Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you welcome to stuff you should know
Speaker 1: from House toff works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to
Speaker 1: the podcast. I'm Josh Clark. There's Charles W. Chuck Bryant.
Speaker 1: This is William Shatner. You have the sound of a
Speaker 1: man who sounds like he's leaving town. I do. It
Speaker 1: is a weekend. Yeah, I'm leaving town too. Nice are
Speaker 1: you going? I'm going to see my sister and my
Speaker 1: two nieces. My brother in law is not there, but
Speaker 1: in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Very nice at the U. S.
Speaker 1: Marine Corps bas very nice. You're gonna go to the
Speaker 1: p X Campbell of June. I think, uh, sure, I'll
Speaker 1: go to the p X. Should get some stuff there.
Speaker 1: It's all like in a military discount some TAMO and
Speaker 1: m O. Just walk like you're supposed to be in there,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe make eye contact with everybody, try to
Speaker 1: wither him and they'll be like, oh, he's a soldier.
Speaker 1: I always stand out like a swart thomb on the
Speaker 1: military basis. You're like, this is a fat, hairy guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: why is he here? And should I kill him, So
Speaker 1: you're excited. Yeah, I haven't seen my sister in a while.
Speaker 1: What about you? What you got going on? Uh? We
Speaker 1: are going to New York, you me and I. Um
Speaker 1: for friends wedding. Two friends wedding, two male friends wedding. Yeah,
Speaker 1: awesome and it's official now. Congratulations to those guys. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Mitch and Patrick, who are friends on the Facebook page,
Speaker 1: tried to help them out. They were like in a
Speaker 1: contest for crighton barrel wedding two steaks. Yeah, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people showed up and bumped them from like
Speaker 1: number twenty something. They're like number one for a little
Speaker 1: while and then they just got crushed. So hats off
Speaker 1: to everybody on our Facebook page who helped them out.
Speaker 1: They are very grateful and to them. Yes me, best
Speaker 1: wishes from stuff you should know from Mitch Patrick. Absolutely. Okay,
Speaker 1: So Chuck, you want to get down to this, Yes,
Speaker 1: how Jeane Simmons works Origen shall it Jene Cisco Gene
Speaker 1: croupa well and with gene Gene pattents really is what
Speaker 1: we're talking about, right, So it's interesting, I have I agree,
Speaker 1: interesting and terrifying. Um. And by the way, I just
Speaker 1: want to go ahead and say that there is a
Speaker 1: documentary companion documentary that's required viewing for this one. It's
Speaker 1: called The Corporation. Uh, if you have Netflix, it's streaming
Speaker 1: on Netflix. You can also order the DVD or whatever.
Speaker 1: But you could watch it literally right the second. It's
Speaker 1: probably all over YouTube too. It's like one of those docs,
Speaker 1: very well made, good stuff. It touches on a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff in here and just goes into greater depth.
Speaker 1: So I say, check out The Corporation. It's a good
Speaker 1: documentary either way. Um. But uh, let me let me
Speaker 1: give you a little story here. There is a condition.
Speaker 1: It can be congenital. It can actually be acquired strangely enough,
Speaker 1: although I didn't find out how. But it's called UM
Speaker 1: growth hormone deficiency, right, okay, And basically it just means
Speaker 1: that you are short, you're smaller in stature UM then
Speaker 1: is average. Maybe you're smaller than the rest of your
Speaker 1: family members, who knows, but the the point is that
Speaker 1: your pituitary glands aren't producing enough growth hormone. Like manuel Lewis,
Speaker 1: I imagine that he has some sort of growth hormone deficiency.
Speaker 1: I think it's an umbrella term, but yes, UM, the
Speaker 1: good thing is that it's treatable, and it's been treatable
Speaker 1: for a while. And we knew for a very long
Speaker 1: time where to get the treatment, where to get human
Speaker 1: growth hormone, and that was extracting it from the pituitary
Speaker 1: glands of cadavers. Up until the seventies, if you had
Speaker 1: growth hormone deficiency and you were given injections, the stuff
Speaker 1: they were in acting you with was extracted from cadaver's
Speaker 1: pituitary glands. But it was still good to go. It was.
Speaker 1: It worked, yeah, um, but it was very very expensive.
Speaker 1: I mean, the extraction process, getting your hands on a
Speaker 1: dead body. I mean, there's a lot of factors involved. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then in in the until the nineteen eighties when
Speaker 1: a company called Novo Nordisk got a patent for a
Speaker 1: product called nano nanor one nano one. Yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: a mouthful that it had created in the nineteen seventy three,
Speaker 1: but it didn't get a patent until nineteen two. Couldn't
Speaker 1: they just call it go juice? Yeah, you know, or
Speaker 1: grow juice that be that would be much more appropriate, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll figure that out later. So the history to me
Speaker 1: it was is one of the most interesting parts here.
Speaker 1: And we'll get to nineteen eight two, which was a
Speaker 1: landmark here in this field. But let's back up, Josh, Yes,
Speaker 1: let's use the way back machine because we haven't done that. Now,
Speaker 1: there's a cob women here there. It's musty. Uh. He's
Speaker 1: been eating cheese too. You know. There's like rappers here
Speaker 1: process cheese. Interesting. Uh, So let's go back in time.
Speaker 1: There were three three rulings over the years, starting in
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty three that sort of lead to what we're
Speaker 1: talking about, but they weren't consistent. They sort of flip
Speaker 1: flopped on the subject. Uh. In eighteen fifty three, Robert
Speaker 1: Morse of the Telegraph fame was initially denied his patent
Speaker 1: because part of it involved electromagnetism, a key part of it,
Speaker 1: and they said he can't fatten electromagnetism. No, why, silly boy,
Speaker 1: Because it's a principle of nature. Right. It's like, uh,
Speaker 1: my device uses that cloud right there, so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: patent that cloud. Like you can't patent a cloud. Well,
Speaker 1: what about the process that makes clouds? No, you can't.
Speaker 1: It's nature, that's natural. You can't patent nature. And this
Speaker 1: is back when the U. S. Patent Office was the
Speaker 1: god fearing US Patent Office and they knew what to
Speaker 1: issue patents for and whatnot to not the crazy cuckoo
Speaker 1: mixed up patent office of today. That's right where you
Speaker 1: can patent thoughts and dreams. I'm patenting you chuck actually
Speaker 1: on that already and you owe me to indollars for
Speaker 1: you and saying that, uh so. Following that the second
Speaker 1: ruling in nineteen twelve, another court ruled that you could
Speaker 1: patent adrenaline because it's a distilled type of adrenaline that
Speaker 1: was treated in a lab outside the body and it
Speaker 1: was different than the natural adrenaline inside the body. Then,
Speaker 1: after World War Two, another ruling reversed it again in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Supreme Court said, I'm sorry, you cannot patent
Speaker 1: this mixture of bacteria that you're making in your lab
Speaker 1: right even doesn't exist in nature. And this would later
Speaker 1: become a real touchstone in this argument, like does this
Speaker 1: exist in nature? Like that cloud right there? Uh you,
Speaker 1: it's natural. You can't patent it, But could you patent
Speaker 1: a process or a cloud that you could create in
Speaker 1: the lab that nature doesn't produce? Him? Maybe isn't capable
Speaker 1: of producing. That's where it gets Harry. Yeah. Another big
Speaker 1: step forward was the Plant Patent Act of nineteen thirty
Speaker 1: thanks to a dude to name Luther Burbank, which is
Speaker 1: a pretty rocking name. I think that's my new hotel name,
Speaker 1: Luther Burbank. It's pretty cool for a you know, early
Speaker 1: twentieth century white dude. Uh. He was a botanist and
Speaker 1: he created more than eight hundred strains and varieties of plants,
Speaker 1: including the Shasta daisy, the fire poppy, and the white BlackBerry.
Speaker 1: I'm a fan of the Shasta daisy. Yeah. Yeah, Well
Speaker 1: you have Luther Burbank. Thank I see him wearing four
Speaker 1: finger rings, that says luth Yeah. Uh so he was obviously,
Speaker 1: uh you know, pretty inspired to create plants. And they said,
Speaker 1: you know what, that's pretty neto that you can do
Speaker 1: all this stuff, so you should be allowed to We're
Speaker 1: gonna pass this Plant Act. But don't even try two
Speaker 1: patent bacteria again. There's a problem with bacteria that the
Speaker 1: court has always traditionally disallowed. Apparently they consider bacteria more
Speaker 1: natural life than a hybrid plant. It's true because of
Speaker 1: the next case and that plant, that plant patent act um. Really,
Speaker 1: that's that is a big deal, even just beyond like
Speaker 1: what we're talking about, and we'll get to that later,
Speaker 1: like what effects that that has had? Yeah? Um. And
Speaker 1: then there's also a Plant Protection Act of nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: that also allowed patents as well, but again this allowed bacteria.
Speaker 1: Bacteria keeps getting kicked around, kicked around, kicked around until right,
Speaker 1: was that a Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Yes, Ananda Chakrabarty worked
Speaker 1: for GE developed a bacterium that could break down crude
Speaker 1: oil and said, hey, we should use this for oil spills.
Speaker 1: Very useful, great idea. Uh, the Court of Customs and
Speaker 1: Patent Appeals, I'm sorry, it was initially rejected. And then
Speaker 1: the Customs and Patent Appeals office overturned that, saying that
Speaker 1: the fact that it's alive has no significant purpose in
Speaker 1: our patent office. Right. And also you left out that
Speaker 1: that chucker body um created a bacteria that didn't exist
Speaker 1: in nature. Oh, it was. It was brand new, it
Speaker 1: was recombinant. He made it himself. That's pretty cool, yes,
Speaker 1: but then the bacteria. Uh. The Supreme Court then argued
Speaker 1: the case and in nineteen eighty Warren Burger wrote that
Speaker 1: whoever invents, and this is very key moving forward, whoever
Speaker 1: invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacturer,
Speaker 1: or and this is the key, composition of matter or
Speaker 1: any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,
Speaker 1: therefore subject to the blah blah blah blah blah if
Speaker 1: some fact though, but composition matters the key three words there, Right,
Speaker 1: There's a big difference between a product of nature or
Speaker 1: a principle of nature and the composition of matter, which
Speaker 1: could be anything from you know, using two types of
Speaker 1: metal to create an alloy, or creating two types of
Speaker 1: DNA to create yeah, something like insulin um. And by
Speaker 1: the way, diamond and diamond v chakra body is diamond.
Speaker 1: Was the the head of the patent's office. So when
Speaker 1: you fought against it, yeah, he he sued him to
Speaker 1: be like, no, yeah, this is this is wrong. When'd
Speaker 1: you feel like you're in trouble if the if the
Speaker 1: head of the patents office was suing you, like, it
Speaker 1: just seems worse, you know. Buton and that changed everything.
Speaker 1: Um within two years, the first patent for UM, the
Speaker 1: first gene patent, what we would call a gene patent
Speaker 1: UM was issued to the University of California. Yeah, for
Speaker 1: UM a hormone engineered too. I guess for milk production,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. And it was involved in breast cancer treatment,
Speaker 1: but I don't know exactly what it did. I got
Speaker 1: you UM. And then the same year insulin was patented
Speaker 1: We're comminentt insulin, which was huge also. So that was
Speaker 1: the same year that Novo nor Disc got its patent
Speaker 1: for um nannermant nan normandy, the human growth hormone product. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so UM that really just kind of opened up the floodgate.
Speaker 1: Chakra body changed everything, and that that shows up in
Speaker 1: the corporation too. It's pretty interesting how they talked about
Speaker 1: that UM and but really I guess as far as
Speaker 1: gene patents go, the real moment when everything changed was
Speaker 1: in the late nineties when this little known group at
Speaker 1: the time popped up UH in the media and said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're almost finished entirely mapping the human genome. And the
Speaker 1: U S Patent Office workers went and there's a flood
Speaker 1: of patent requests. Right, one was for Pandora radio. Wasn't
Speaker 1: that based on that? The Music Genome project, what's it
Speaker 1: I think so. I would imagine if that's what they
Speaker 1: called it or inspired by it. UM. But yeah, everyone
Speaker 1: lined up all the time. It's like, oh, pattent this patent.
Speaker 1: That they'd be like, I heard about this GENO, want
Speaker 1: to patent it. I want to pattent this one. And
Speaker 1: so they were inundated with it. And so in two
Speaker 1: thousand one, the US Patent and Trademark Office the US
Speaker 1: p t O UM issued new guidelines saying, Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: anybody can apply for a patent, but you have to
Speaker 1: know what you're talking about. You have to know you
Speaker 1: have to know what the gene does, or you have
Speaker 1: to have come up with some process UM using this gene.
Speaker 1: There's there's there. There has to be criteria everybody, everybody. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there has to be criteria UM. And that definitely UM
Speaker 1: allowed some of the high there was a high water
Speaker 1: mark in the the tie ebbed a little bit, a
Speaker 1: little bit. But currently I believe, which was the initial
Speaker 1: stat there are three to five thousand human gene patents
Speaker 1: right now in the US alone. Yeah, forty seven thousand
Speaker 1: involving inventions like equipment involving genetic material or insulin is
Speaker 1: another example. Yeah, that's an invention using genetic material. But
Speaker 1: there are more than three million on file as applicants. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like that impending shirt ye so um, and that's with
Speaker 1: the the tide ebbing. I hope, I hope it's ebbing.
Speaker 1: And just in the United States again, isn't it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: in the United States, Um, and there's plenty in Europe
Speaker 1: and Japan. It's basically Europe, Japan, and the US are
Speaker 1: the leaders in issuing patents for this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: Like basically, if you want to push the rest of
Speaker 1: the world around, you go get a patent at one
Speaker 1: of one of these areas patent offices. So uh, well,
Speaker 1: let's talk specifically about the US, right, Um, let's talk patents. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you want to get a patent, you have to
Speaker 1: you have to meet some criteria. Um. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what the patents for, whether it's for the dippie bird
Speaker 1: or you know, for human growth hormone. Um. And so
Speaker 1: for any any invention to get a patent to be
Speaker 1: a proof for a patent, um it has to meet
Speaker 1: for criteria. Right, has to be useful, it has to
Speaker 1: be non obvious, right, Like it can't be a shoe string.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I would have non what would an
Speaker 1: obvious one be? A wonder an obvious invention would be
Speaker 1: um man, I don't know. I'm just curious. Maybe using
Speaker 1: peppermint too too, um fight bad breath? Maybe obvious. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's obvious. Anybody can do that. You can't patent that.
Speaker 1: There you go, there's air non obvious example. Um. It
Speaker 1: has to be novel, right, um. And it has to
Speaker 1: meet the enablement criterion, which is a big deal. And
Speaker 1: this is pretty much the whole reason patents exist. One
Speaker 1: of the big reasons. It's got to have detail. It
Speaker 1: can't be just a big, broad, esoteric thing. It's got
Speaker 1: to be detailed enough where someone in that field can
Speaker 1: figure it out and use it, right, And this is
Speaker 1: this is one of the major reasons the patent office exists.
Speaker 1: It's to say, Okay, thank you for sharing your findings
Speaker 1: with the rest of the world. We're gonna give you
Speaker 1: twenty years of exclusivity. But in return, you're you're being
Speaker 1: totally transparent. Here's all of the processes, here's all the notes,
Speaker 1: here's anything that anybody working in your field can can
Speaker 1: look at and use to build upon your research, or
Speaker 1: they pay you well, but can they get it and
Speaker 1: change it enough to where it doesn't You can't. And
Speaker 1: those are called patent trolls and a only they're a
Speaker 1: big problem right now. They're they're towarding technology. I think
Speaker 1: tech stuff did something on patent trolls recently. Interesting. Yeah. Um,
Speaker 1: so you if you are issued a patent, you get
Speaker 1: twenty years of exclusivity. Nobody can use it, uh um,
Speaker 1: market it, sell it anything as you do with your
Speaker 1: invention or process unless they pay you. They have to
Speaker 1: go through you, and you license it and reap the benefits, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the reason it was such a mad rush when
Speaker 1: the genome project was first completed because obviously the first
Speaker 1: person to invent something gets the patent. So if you
Speaker 1: can prove that, then that's yours for twenty years. So
Speaker 1: well that's based on the first to invent principle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: right exactly, So you have to prove that and then
Speaker 1: after that you've got it for twenty years. And everyone
Speaker 1: was in a big rush to be the first with
Speaker 1: these gene patents. Have you heard the story of um
Speaker 1: Alexander Graham Bell and Elijah what was his name? Do
Speaker 1: you mean? The real guy? He would invented the telephone? Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's his name? Oh? Was that the case? I knew
Speaker 1: there was some stink there, but I wasn't sure. Um,
Speaker 1: Elijah Gray. Apparently Elijah Gray invented a telephone that looked
Speaker 1: and worked way way more like the ones we used today,
Speaker 1: I should say, the ones we used in the used
Speaker 1: in the seventies and eighties. Right. It wasn't stealth phone,
Speaker 1: but you know, the kind of rotary dial all that. Um.
Speaker 1: But Alexander Graham Bell beat him to the patent office
Speaker 1: and um, now did he steal his ideas? Or was
Speaker 1: it just confirms independent? Um? And I can't remember what
Speaker 1: that's called. But there's there's there's an idea that, like
Speaker 1: you know, oh the zeitgeist, we're all, you know, ideas
Speaker 1: kind of float out there for anybody to latch onto,
Speaker 1: and sometimes people do independently. I wonder how far apart
Speaker 1: they were from each other and being completed, And like
Speaker 1: I wonder if it was literally literally like my horse
Speaker 1: fell sick that day and I couldn't make it to
Speaker 1: the office. Um, but did I don't remember how how
Speaker 1: close it was, but it was pretty close. Um. So Uh,
Speaker 1: the Patent office has this first to invent principle where
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily like who beat who to the patent office.
Speaker 1: It's if you have a situation like that, who's been
Speaker 1: working on this longer or who reached a landmark longer,
Speaker 1: and then that's who gets the patent. That's why there
Speaker 1: was like you said that mad rush, because you know,
Speaker 1: it's like I noticed this first, so let me go
Speaker 1: ahead and get my patent in well. And with the
Speaker 1: case of like insulin or any of any of these
Speaker 1: gene patents, really you can't just say like, oh, I
Speaker 1: got this thing like you. They have to have it
Speaker 1: on file, which is something I never knew. There are
Speaker 1: twenty six culture depositories around the world thanks to and
Speaker 1: this is such a mouthful, thanks to the Budapest Treaty
Speaker 1: on the International Recognition of the deposit of Microorganisms for
Speaker 1: the purpose of Patent Procedure. So basically, it's like a
Speaker 1: repository where you send in your sample, right, and that
Speaker 1: the way I understand it, um, And there's twenty six
Speaker 1: of them worldwide, right, Yeah. And if it is a
Speaker 1: a product of if it's something you remove from from
Speaker 1: the body and processed, the patent only applies to the
Speaker 1: very end result that you send in, not like the
Speaker 1: little stages along the way, although you can patent that
Speaker 1: those stages, Yeah, but they just have to be independent
Speaker 1: of one another, right yeah, alright. So, um, you've you've
Speaker 1: submitted your sample to a depository, you have applied for
Speaker 1: the patent, it's been issued. You're good to go. Um,
Speaker 1: what are you patenting? Right? Like, I think there's a
Speaker 1: huge misunderstanding among the public that you're walking around and
Speaker 1: the some company owns the the rights to your genes. True? False? False?
Speaker 1: That is false. I mean the gene patent is kind
Speaker 1: of a misnomer. It's a pretty big misnomer actually, because
Speaker 1: there's certain criteria that have to be met. Like you,
Speaker 1: you you have natural Um what is it natural matter? Um?
Speaker 1: Is it is that always called? Or something of nature?
Speaker 1: Composition of nature? Genes are a composition of nature in
Speaker 1: your body. To patent something, you have to extract genes
Speaker 1: and get them to do like, you know, jump through
Speaker 1: a flaming hoop outside of the body. Then you have
Speaker 1: something called composition of matter. Right. Um, So what are
Speaker 1: some of the things that people are getting gene patents for? Well,
Speaker 1: it breaks down, my friend, into four categories pretty much. Uh,
Speaker 1: you won't go one at a time. Yeah, for a change. Diagnostics,
Speaker 1: that means, uh, they're looking to patent a method. Basically
Speaker 1: generally it tests for genetic differences, abnormalities, uh, spotting genetic
Speaker 1: markers and cancer, alzheim or stuff like that. Right, pretty
Speaker 1: nice way to use your time, I think it is.
Speaker 1: But it's also very controversial. As we'll see in a
Speaker 1: little bit this not all of it is, but three
Speaker 1: of the four are, right. And with diagnostics, what you're
Speaker 1: patenting is in fact the gene that you're looking at
Speaker 1: or the genes involved, and the um the mutations. Right,
Speaker 1: so you have a bunch of different possible mutations, right,
Speaker 1: but a very sharp company. And by the way, by
Speaker 1: saying you need to know what you're talking about or
Speaker 1: you need to have put some sort of UM research
Speaker 1: into this basically excluded schmos like you and I from
Speaker 1: getting gene patents. And just said, huge laboratories, huge corporations
Speaker 1: are the only ones who can possibly get gene patents now. Um,
Speaker 1: so if you have a very sharp laboratory or very
Speaker 1: sharp corporation, they're gonna have a patent for every possible
Speaker 1: mutation for a specific gene and then ultimately what they're
Speaker 1: patenting is the screening process. The test hit exactly used
Speaker 1: to evaluate these mutations. So that's number one. UH functional
Speaker 1: uses the second that is pretty much just discovering roles
Speaker 1: played by genes. Uh. They're usually issued for drugs that
Speaker 1: affect the functioning of the genes. Yeah, so I guess
Speaker 1: insulin would be that. Uh No, insulin is composition of matter.
Speaker 1: So functional, we understand that this mutation on this gene
Speaker 1: causes this to happen. So we're going to create a
Speaker 1: drug that makes the gene act normally, expressed normally something
Speaker 1: like that, And that's the that's the future of UM
Speaker 1: pharmaceuticals is genetically tailored drugs because right now, when you
Speaker 1: take a drug right Thailand all or something, you're just
Speaker 1: throwing something in the in the wind and hoping it works. Right,
Speaker 1: genetically tailor drugs, it's like, look at your genetic composition
Speaker 1: and then say, well, this is the drug you need
Speaker 1: and it will work at the time and it will
Speaker 1: work effectively. Dollars, please make it check out. UH process
Speaker 1: is the third type of patent in this category, and
Speaker 1: that's pretty easy. That's basically protecting a method by which
Speaker 1: the genes are extracted or manipulated. And it's the least
Speaker 1: controversial out of all these because it's not it's a
Speaker 1: more traditional kind of patent, right, This is like science. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then you have composition of matter. That's yeah, composition
Speaker 1: of matter and diagnostics are the two most controversial. And
Speaker 1: composition of matter is like human growth hormone insulin stuff
Speaker 1: that saves lives. Um and but it's an invention quote
Speaker 1: unquote it is, I mean like creating human growth hormone
Speaker 1: using E. Coal i to string together amino acids. That's
Speaker 1: an invention and hats off to you. So what's what's
Speaker 1: the controversy? What's the problem with gene patents with it's
Speaker 1: issuing twenty years of exclusivity to somebody who you know,
Speaker 1: teaches the coal i to string together amino acids. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a couple of different controversies, one the ethical and
Speaker 1: social and economic, the others the legal. As far as
Speaker 1: legal goes, if you're against it, you're gonna argue that, dude,
Speaker 1: these are your genes. There is nothing more natural than
Speaker 1: the genes in your body, So of course you can't
Speaker 1: patent them. And it doesn't matter what you do to them,
Speaker 1: like it's still based on this product of nature. That
Speaker 1: just leave it alone, Like this should be this, This
Speaker 1: is the heritage of humankind. It's us, it's what makes
Speaker 1: us us. Of course, we shouldn't be issuing patents to
Speaker 1: corporations on genes, say, say the critics of gene pat
Speaker 1: right proponents would say, hey, dude, if we can extract
Speaker 1: this from the body and manipulate it many times to
Speaker 1: the point where it's not even the same as before,
Speaker 1: then of course you should be able to patent that right.
Speaker 1: And and that's one of the reasons why we have
Speaker 1: patents is to reward innovation, to reward very smart people,
Speaker 1: and to encourage more innovation and research and things that
Speaker 1: save lives, like so you don't have to extract growth
Speaker 1: formon from the pituitary glance of the dead um myriad genetics.
Speaker 1: Should we talk about that. It's a good example. This
Speaker 1: is a big one. Uh. They filed seven patents relating
Speaker 1: to h r C A one and b r C
Speaker 1: A two. Basically, what they developed was a test kit
Speaker 1: for breast and ovarian cancer. Right, and these these two
Speaker 1: um genes account for I think, like of breast de
Speaker 1: ovarian cancer, I think breast cancer. So it's pretty substantial.
Speaker 1: And uh, Myriad got a patent on the screening kit
Speaker 1: that they created, and they promptly turned around and sent
Speaker 1: letters to just about every cancer screening laboratory in the
Speaker 1: world right and said, hey, we're here that you guys
Speaker 1: are saving people's lives. That's awesome. I think, keep up
Speaker 1: the good work. Just make sure that you send all
Speaker 1: of your cancer screening when it relates to these two
Speaker 1: genes to us, and we'll do it, and we're going
Speaker 1: to charge you for it. And throughout the world, people
Speaker 1: in laboratories through these letters up in the air and
Speaker 1: and clucked their tongues and stroked their beards and anger
Speaker 1: and strutted about their flasks and and in Canada it
Speaker 1: was just overtly ignored. The Canadian government itself stepped and
Speaker 1: it was like, you don't need to listen to these crackpots. Um.
Speaker 1: In Europe it was very controversial. I think it's largely ignored.
Speaker 1: So it's upheld I think in the US because this
Speaker 1: was the country that issued the patent, But elsewhere they're like,
Speaker 1: we're not listening to you. And for a long time,
Speaker 1: Myriad didn't do anything. There wasn't any lawsuits. Uh, and
Speaker 1: then there was one, and in two thousand and ten
Speaker 1: the company, um, yeah, Well the U. S. District Court said,
Speaker 1: now we're not We're not going to support this. And
Speaker 1: then in two thousand eleven Court of Appeal for the
Speaker 1: Federal Circuit overturned that lower court's decision, so it went
Speaker 1: up one step higher and Myriad got satisfaction. They got
Speaker 1: Myriad satisfaction. Yeah, you know that means thirty tho. It's
Speaker 1: an actual number, Myriad. Yeah, just like decimated as ten.
Speaker 1: But this is one that I'm I'm on the side
Speaker 1: of the people using it correctly because I can't stand
Speaker 1: it when someone says like I had a myriad of yeah,
Speaker 1: when it's supposed to be just myriad, I had thirty
Speaker 1: thousand costs. See that's where I disagree with the thirty
Speaker 1: thou part, Like, say it correctly, but come on, or
Speaker 1: you could just say like I had a myriad of
Speaker 1: costs and then wink afterywere like, I don't want to
Speaker 1: talking about him, just pull my finger. So the Myriad
Speaker 1: case continues. I did I did, like when it was
Speaker 1: initially ruled against the ruling judge. He sounded really like
Speaker 1: a who was Andy Griffith's judge character or no lawyer character,
Speaker 1: Matt Luck it's a that's a lawyer's trick. That's what
Speaker 1: he called it. And then they Supreme Court said, no,
Speaker 1: it's not a trick. They modified it, your honor. I
Speaker 1: don't know spit about lawyer, but do know the human heart.
Speaker 1: I never saw that show. I didn't either, but there
Speaker 1: was a good Senenate live send up of it. Of course,
Speaker 1: still Hartman did r I P. Phil Hartman. So ethical
Speaker 1: social challenges and controversies, this is where it gets hot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I guess we should say, like we just kind
Speaker 1: of left it, like myrroads up in the air. That's
Speaker 1: the standard for what's going on in the US right
Speaker 1: now as far as gene pattents go. And that was
Speaker 1: just a few months ago. The Pattent Office is honoring
Speaker 1: its obligations, and then the courts are people are suing people,
Speaker 1: and the courts are just going all over the place.
Speaker 1: So it's just totally up in the air whether or
Speaker 1: not this is going to be allowed or what kind
Speaker 1: of standards will eventually adopt the heat of this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we are so yeah, let's talk about ethical the ethics
Speaker 1: of this, right yeah. I mean it's sort of along
Speaker 1: the same lines in a way as the legal challenges,
Speaker 1: because proponents are gonna say, you know this, this is
Speaker 1: great for research. If you don't, if you don't allow this,
Speaker 1: then companies aren't gonna be able to make a profit
Speaker 1: from this. So there's going to be no incentive if
Speaker 1: to to continue this kind of research. Reacharch is gonna stop.
Speaker 1: And this research is important. Like you can say what
Speaker 1: you will about Myriad, but they're screening test saves lives
Speaker 1: and if they invented it, then this sort of breaks
Speaker 1: down almost into private sector capitalism versus because if the
Speaker 1: private sector dried up because they couldn't make any money
Speaker 1: off this stuff, all the research would be left to
Speaker 1: government funded laboratories. Right. It's it's very much divided among
Speaker 1: capitalists socialist lines, and I think though that people who
Speaker 1: normally wouldn't consider themselves socialists are falling into the critics
Speaker 1: camp just from the just the idea of you know,
Speaker 1: having gene patents out there. It's it is something that
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people think should just belong
Speaker 1: to all humankind. But the the free market proponents do
Speaker 1: may a pretty good case. You know, if that if
Speaker 1: you don't reward innovation and invention and clever yeah the
Speaker 1: techniques monetarily, then you have a problem. On the other side, though,
Speaker 1: you can say, well, you're also issuing monopolies on things
Speaker 1: that like our life saving that a company can charge
Speaker 1: whatever they want, Like what will you pay to find
Speaker 1: out you know whether you have cancer? Or what will
Speaker 1: you pay for a drug that will get rid of
Speaker 1: your cancer, Chuck Bryant, Because we know your genetic makeup
Speaker 1: and we know that this will work perfectly with your
Speaker 1: genetic makeup. How much will you pay for that? And
Speaker 1: we're the only company you can get it from. I'd
Speaker 1: pay everything I had. Yes, you would know, and so
Speaker 1: would you know every other person who had the same
Speaker 1: similar genetic makeup as you, which is problematic. And also
Speaker 1: if it if it, here's your cancer, but the three
Speaker 1: weeks later your head explodes, but it doesn't happen in everybody.
Speaker 1: That company has zero incentive to make its product so
Speaker 1: that it doesn't make you know, the thirty percent of
Speaker 1: people's heads explode because it has a monopoly. What are
Speaker 1: you gonna do? You're still gonna buy this thing. Right.
Speaker 1: Another argument for is that at least what this process
Speaker 1: does is creates transparency and research. It's all out there.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows there's people might not be wasting their time
Speaker 1: duplicating research a and be uh people can build on
Speaker 1: your research and it will propel it further into the future.
Speaker 1: Should pretty good argument there. Yeah, but you can understand
Speaker 1: why this is not a cut and dried argument. Well,
Speaker 1: the A m A says we know, like, yeah, the
Speaker 1: A m A saying like that this won't help support
Speaker 1: research for American Medical Association. It's saying that, um, it
Speaker 1: will inhibit uh research on genetic disease and basically, even
Speaker 1: worse than that, it will inhibit access for the average person.
Speaker 1: So I want to give an example of what is
Speaker 1: at stake here. Okay, so we've kind of seen like,
Speaker 1: you know, this kind of this kind of reward does
Speaker 1: propel innovation and research. Right, But there's this UM with
Speaker 1: the Plant Act of UM that allowed people to genetically
Speaker 1: modify plants Luther Burbank, Yeah, um and then get patents
Speaker 1: for those. There's a company called Monsanto and Montsano came
Speaker 1: up with this idea called UM Genetic Use Restriction technology.
Speaker 1: It's UM also known as terminator technology, where they have
Speaker 1: figured out how to insert a gene basically a suicide
Speaker 1: gene into its seeds. It's genetically modified seeds right for
Speaker 1: second seeds, yes, so for the first generation seed you
Speaker 1: your plant just grow like normal, like a normal genetically
Speaker 1: modified organism. It will produce seeds, but those seeds it
Speaker 1: produces are sterile because it has a gene in it
Speaker 1: that that won't allow it to produce seeds that can
Speaker 1: be used again. This means that you have to go
Speaker 1: to Monsano to buy their seeds. You can't hoard their
Speaker 1: seeds and replant next year. Every year you have to
Speaker 1: go and buy their seeds. This is fine and dandy
Speaker 1: for very wealthy farmers in the West, but no matter
Speaker 1: where you are in the world, if you want to
Speaker 1: grow this you know UM cricket resistant type of wheat
Speaker 1: that Monsano owns a patent on, you got to buy
Speaker 1: it from Monsano and you have to buy it every
Speaker 1: year wheter what you can afford or can't. And basically
Speaker 1: there's a really good argument that you should not be
Speaker 1: allowed to to own a patent a license on a
Speaker 1: process as natural as a plant producing offspring producing seeds.
Speaker 1: So that's one example that a lot of people point
Speaker 1: to is like cautionary tale. Well, they for against gene pattons.
Speaker 1: They did not, Monsanto did not. They still hold this.
Speaker 1: They didn't release it and say this is what we're doing.
Speaker 1: You know, they actually vowed to not do that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they said, we won't do it, but you've got to
Speaker 1: sign this agreement if you do business with us, or
Speaker 1: we'll start releasing this right, And the agreement says that
Speaker 1: you won't reuse seeds that you get from their genetically
Speaker 1: modified plants. And didn't they buy up the company that
Speaker 1: was originally ah Delta and pine Land Company. They ended
Speaker 1: up buying them up, didn't they? Yes, and they they
Speaker 1: this company has said has vowed the opposite that they're
Speaker 1: going to start using that terminator gene commercially. Oh they have. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people are very nervous about whether
Speaker 1: or not that genetic use restriction technology will come into play.
Speaker 1: But I mean it's already effectively in play. We should
Speaker 1: do a Monsanto podcast that would be explosive, would be
Speaker 1: very explosive. We will. So that's gene pattents. This is uh,
Speaker 1: we haven't done one of these in a while. I'm
Speaker 1: quite sure we're gonna hear from people on both sides
Speaker 1: of this issue, and we want to. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: we did a good job this time of keeping our
Speaker 1: own dirty laundry out of it. Yes, we did. Kudos
Speaker 1: to you, buddy. And um so if you we have
Speaker 1: a bunch of stuff on Jeanes and Gene Pattents on
Speaker 1: how Stuff Works dot com, just type in Gene Pattents
Speaker 1: that will bring up a lot of stuff, including a
Speaker 1: quiz which you could say is maybe a compendium to this,
Speaker 1: uh this episode. Who wrote this one? Uh, Michael Franco,
Speaker 1: I don't Yeah, he does everything does um, But yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a pretty good article. But just type in
Speaker 1: Gene Patton said the search bar how stuff works dot Com. Also,
Speaker 1: don't forget check out the corporation. Uh, it's just a
Speaker 1: really interesting documentary. Um. And I said search bar in
Speaker 1: there somewhere. So that means it's time for listener mail.
Speaker 1: And this is the winning listener mail, is it? It's
Speaker 1: the first one? Really? Yeah, promised a book to the
Speaker 1: the The author of this email will receive a free
Speaker 1: copy hardcover copy of John Hodgman's incredible book about the
Speaker 1: end of the world. The third in this trilogy of
Speaker 1: knowledge World Knowledge called That Is All, which just came
Speaker 1: out of November one hof and you really should buy it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: except for this person, John's a buddy and stuff. But
Speaker 1: it's a very very fun book. Um all right, I
Speaker 1: kind of forgot that when I picked this, but I
Speaker 1: think this Turkish listener is is uh, he deserves it,
Speaker 1: so yeah, we'll go with him, The Lucky Turk, The
Speaker 1: Lucky Turk. Hey, guys, listening to you from Turkey. I
Speaker 1: guess I gave that away. I really love the podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks a lot for what you're doing. This might sound
Speaker 1: a bit like complaining, thought wait, wait, wait, I'd prefer
Speaker 1: that I don't come across this complaining. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if you even have any more listeners from Turkey,
Speaker 1: But in various episodes, every time you mentioned Turkey, like
Speaker 1: when somebody was stuck in Turkey on the last episode
Speaker 1: where you were wondering if people can surf on the
Speaker 1: boss for us Phosphorus Bosporus, it always kind of sounds
Speaker 1: like you look down on Turkey a bit, to be honest. Untrue.
Speaker 1: Now we we talked about being stuck in Turkey and
Speaker 1: how awful that would be. That's I don't recall that
Speaker 1: because I would love to go to Turkey sometimes. I
Speaker 1: have a friend who played bass in the second most
Speaker 1: popular Turkish rock band in the late nineties. Really yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't remember the name of it, but PEPSI did
Speaker 1: a poll of Turks and my friend's band came in
Speaker 1: second and most popular was your friend Turkish. No, he
Speaker 1: went to Turkey just for the heck of it and
Speaker 1: ended up in the number two most popular rock band
Speaker 1: in Turkey. That's probably not hard to do. See, that's
Speaker 1: what this guy's talking about. It's you, Chuck, I'm getting
Speaker 1: wrapped up in your problems, al right. Sorry to drag
Speaker 1: you down. You guys seem to be a couple of
Speaker 1: people who would like to know the facts. So I
Speaker 1: just wanted to suggest you check out things like ohlu
Speaker 1: Deniz Turkey, or maybe Fethaette Turkey or Bodrum Turkey in
Speaker 1: Google images. I'm just saying, I don't think anyone wouldn't
Speaker 1: mind being stuck in Turkey, really, if you really know
Speaker 1: what Turkey was like, and I did look these places up, dude,
Speaker 1: you know, gorgeous Turkey also arguably has the world's first city.
Speaker 1: I can't remember what it's called, but it's just because
Speaker 1: I felt like I have to say this since I'm
Speaker 1: already writing an email. There is no surfing on the Bosphorus,
Speaker 1: not even swimming on the Bosphorus. It's kind of dangerous.
Speaker 1: Usually it's just bigger ships crossing country that use that,
Speaker 1: and there are no beaches there. But Turkey is surrounded
Speaker 1: on three sides by the sea, basically a peninsula, so
Speaker 1: there's windsurfing, every kind of water sport you can think
Speaker 1: of on the seaside cities. Uh. In the media, Turkey
Speaker 1: comes across as if it was a dusty hut and
Speaker 1: primitive country, which I think is what I had been saying,
Speaker 1: and I should say. When I worked for my last company,
Speaker 1: which was a chicken software company, one of our clients
Speaker 1: was in Turkey and some of our guys would go
Speaker 1: over there to the chicken farms and it was awful too.
Speaker 1: They would come back saying, please God, don't ever send
Speaker 1: me to Turkey again. They were in like the awful
Speaker 1: part of Turkey. They were raising chickens and Turkey. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I have to say that, though only some small cities
Speaker 1: on the eastern edges are like that, guys. The people
Speaker 1: in different clothes are more interesting than people to look
Speaker 1: at who look like most of us, who look like
Speaker 1: every other European country. So the media only reflects the
Speaker 1: different part, kind of like only showing rednecks grilling steak
Speaker 1: on a shopping cart I've never seen. I guess I'm
Speaker 1: gonna the rest of Turkeys pretty much like California, great climate, people,
Speaker 1: social and cultural, culturally, even especially Istanbul, it resembles a
Speaker 1: very crowded San Francisco, not Constantinople, what with all the
Speaker 1: hills and the bridges and the hipsters. So that is
Speaker 1: from goes to ge z d E And dude, you're
Speaker 1: getting a book. And I am sorry for bad mouthing
Speaker 1: Turkey because I did look at pictures and it's nothing
Speaker 1: at all like I thought. I'm not sorry for bad
Speaker 1: mouthing Turkey because I didn't. I didn't and if I did,
Speaker 1: I was totally joking. Then I feel like I owe
Speaker 1: this guy book. Yeah, the only place in the world
Speaker 1: I would never go is Detroit. I totally go to Turkey.
Speaker 1: Detroit's awesome. So what's the name goest you get a book?
Speaker 1: So you're gonna have to write back in Yeah, we
Speaker 1: need your mailing address, goest to, and we should probably
Speaker 1: make them, you know, pay the difference for international shipping. Well,
Speaker 1: and it's Turkey. It probably just says goes to Turkey.
Speaker 1: That's his name, because we'll just put a bunch of
Speaker 1: stamps on it and throw it in the water exactly. Uh.
Speaker 1: Goest to send us an email with your mailing address, UM,
Speaker 1: because we really think there probably are more than one
Speaker 1: of you in Turkey. Uh and uh to all the
Speaker 1: rest of you. If we send an emails, UM, thank you.
Speaker 1: We'll try to read them, but you get no books.
Speaker 1: If you want to get in touch with us, you
Speaker 1: can on Twitter, s y SK podcast, on Facebook, Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com, slash stuff you Should Know, and via email
Speaker 1: at stuff Podcast at how Stuff works dot com. Be
Speaker 1: sure to check out our new video podcast, Stuff from
Speaker 1: the Future. Join how Stuff Work staff as we explore
Speaker 1: the most promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow, brought to
Speaker 1: you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera. It's ready,
Speaker 1: are you