The Gene Patent Question
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Learn what you want to learn with Skillshare for free for two months at skl.sh/wendover2
Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): / halfasinteresting
Check out my podcast with Brian from Real Engineering:
itunes.apple.c... (iTunes link)
/ @showmakers9570 (UA-cam link)
Support Wendover Productions on Patreon: / wendoverproductions
Get a Wendover Productions t-shirt for $20:
store.dftba.co...
UA-cam: / wendoverproductions
Twitter: / wendoverpro
Email: WendoverProductions@gmail.com
Reddit: / wendoverproductions
Animation by Josh Sherrington ( / heliosphere )
Sound by Graham Haerther (www.Haerther.net)
Thumbnail by Joe Cieplinski (joecieplinski.com/)
Music: "Stale Mate" by Jingle Punks, "Night Music" by Kevin MacLeod, "Thoughtful" by Lee Rosevere, "Cylinder Two" by Chris Zabriskie, "Precipice" by Twin Musicom
Golden Rice photo courtesy International Rice Research Institute
Big thanks to Patreon supporters: M, Pete, Ken Lee, Victor Zimmer, Paul Jihoon Choi, Dylan Benson, Etienne Deschamps, Donald, Chris Allen, Abil Abdulla, Anson Leng, John & Becki Johnston, Connor J Smith, Arkadiy Kulev, Hagai Bloch Gabot, William Chappell, Eyal Matsliah, Joseph Bull, Marcelo Alves Vieira, Hank Green, Plinio Correa, Brady Bellini
"Shouldn't a company be rewarded for their years of research?"
But in the Myriad case, it came from a state university, funded by taxpayers. It doesn't seem fair that we the people paid for the research, and then let them turn around and upcharge us for it. This happens all the time with pharmaceutical companies.
That's probably why the people who knew their shit voted unanimously against it.
Truth is state university and the inventors together hold the right to the patent and they can license it out to form a company. So the profit is shared among the inventors (private) and the university for improving general education and facilities since state universities are Non-for-profit. That's why university research and tech transfer and licensing are popular and ethical.
and football stadiums
vasalem very true. But usually stadiums are donor based. Famous alumni use stadium for posterity.
Also, the scientists were rewarded for their years of research: that's what they were _paid_ for
What makes me mad about Myriad isn't that they patented the sequence, it's that they decided to screw everyone over and charge over $4000 for the test. It's greedy and disgusting.
Patenting a piece of the human genome isn't greedy and disgusting otherwise? If they're scum enough to patent a line of human genetic code, of course they'll charge a fortune for it; that's the point.
Makes sense to be able to patent a gene modification. But patenting a discovery just doesn't make sense. That would be like patenting gravity because you were the first to measure its presence.
FutureNow I agree - I'd have no issue with Myriad patenting a testing kit optimised for BRCA1-2 mutations, but patenting the mutations themselves is silly.
The distinction is not so clear though. Library of Babel is an online library with anything that has been written and could ever be written in English. When you write something, do you really create it or do you just discover a meaningful entry?
FutureNow Well said...
Exactly. The worst part is that they patented BRCA1 only knowing that it was involved in breast cancer. Not knowing why and how. Imagine patenting the rest of the human genome, because one of the genes codes for something people would, sometime in the future, be interested in researching. It doesn't make sense. A gene modification on the other hand is like a product, indeed, so then it would make sense. That's like saying you take the raw material, which is the organism, and you make a product of it by changing its genome.
(I study life sciences and we literally begun Genetics at the start of the year (the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were mentioned in lectures and my book "Genetics: analysis and principles by Brooker". Yeah I have to put this part in the comments so you know that I am not a person that just googled a few things).
that was EXACTLY what i thought it would be like patenting newtons gravitational equations
7:23 Yeah, you choose not to buy their seeds, and then when a nearby farm buys their seeds and their plants inevitably cross-pollinate with yours, Monsanto hops in and sues you. Now, you either use their seeds or you lose all your money.
screaming of course, its only natural that plants reproduce, u cannot patent nature, even acording to neoliberal law, that's FLAGRANTLY unlawful and judges are eather geting bribed or are just ignoring law acordind to their ideology
In Myriad's case, couldn't they just patent the METHOD for testing for that gene mutation? Rather than the genes themselves? I'm pretty sure that's how patent trolls get around that sort of thing. Patenting the idea of connecting to a central server and such...
Not really, because testing for something in a gene sequence is not complex or new, and relatively cheap, if the gene isn't patented, anyone could just check for it in their business, that isn't even what Myriad achieved, It's the Gene Sequence that is new, the method has to include the gene, and if the Gene cannot be patented, I don't think there is anyway around that ruling, plus, someone would have taken them to court for that anyway
I guess KarlosBricks knew better
Oh hey! I love your videos! I also happen to agree with you here. The genome itself shouldn't be patented, but a method of finding it/modifying should begin.
A tip for future videos: the names of genes are written in lower case letters, and in italic, so it would be _brca1_ . In contrast BRCA 1 would refer to the corresponding protein. Just some science pedantery for you.
Perhaps more specifically the only known/possible corresponding protein, as one gene might code for multiple proteins through _alternative splicing?_
That is certainly true for most organisms (bacteria, plants etc.). But for some reason it is the convention for primates and some domestic animals to write gene names with all capital letters.
Selek No, that's just not true. I have read hundreds of scientific studies and wrote a few myself. Human genes are certainly written the way I mentioned in scientific publications.
There is a difference between scientific publications and a UA-cam Video. Google search BRCA1 - Every link has it in caps.
the word is "pedantry" lol
They should make it patent free. Just like how the creator of the polio vaccine didn't patent his creation to benefit humanity
Well that's because it was funded under president Roosevelt, so really they couldn't patent it even if they wanted to, that is, unless Roosevelt wished otherwise, which was certainly not gonna happen. Other vaccines have been patented, they're just so widespread that their patent "effect" is almost negligible. Well, at least to the public eye and not the laboratories behind the scene, anyway
Also, your bitch ass is everywhere
Pretentious Altruist Yeah I am in many places
Pretentious Altruist he uses like bots
And just like Volvo and the seatbelt.
One day you can buy premium babies, or for those on lower incomes you can pick your choice of a package deal. Many parents love buying the Clear skin package, which include immunity to skin cancer and acne. Also for those who are ok with ugly children we have an Internal Health package, covering your child from getting most gastro intestinal problem. Our biggest seller however is the Pure Cancer package, which provides immunity to almost all cancers! *some immunities are reserved for premium babies*
It is going to happend probably, we got a huge century upon us
My best bud got married, so I patented every possible genetic combination he had with with his wife. Their children now belong to The Company. Serves 'im right for beating my high score.
#DisproportionateRetribution
Patent the test not the gene
agreed, copyrighting people is just wrong.
Exactly what I was thinking.. dumb appellate court overturning the decision foh
But then we're in the same place practically. If you own the test you can restrict access in the same way.
But it doesn't necessarily prevent competition. If there's a particular way to test for the gene and it's patented, what's to stop you, who has another test from patenting that test and selling it cheaper. Free market competition. Not possible if someone owns the gene itself. It's the difference between having a patent on the automobile vs. having a patent on a specific mass production technique used in your factories.
You are totally Wrong R.B.
The technique or technology used for the test needs to be developed separately for each gene you are testing for. Further more each test needs to go through a FDA approval process before it can be used. This process requires intellectual know how to develop. Just knowing "of" the gene means nothing. Since the test and the methods used for the test is not a naturally occurring product, it is there for legal to patent. Where as the gene is naturally occurring so it is not patent-able.
For example if I invented a solar panel, I can patent the solar panel since it is not a thing of nature. I however can not patent the sunlight light which it relies on to function.
However if your argument is that "one should get a service that other ppl created for free" than you have a case there. -_-!
the man who first started fire should have patented it!
You are a bold one
Would've run out after a while tho...
Clearly patents like this aren’t actually driving innovation, because once a discovery is made, nobody else is allowed to further develop it.
He meant that people wont take risks in the future to research stuff like this if they see that they cant make a lot of money from it or get there expenses back in because they wont have a monopoly on it.
And then what? You've to make further inventions too, ryt? Why would they do that?
A big problem with patents on staple food crops is that it gives a small number of big companies who are driven soley by a desire for profit significan controll on world food production. I think that alone makes the Monsanto-busines model a bad idea.
What if a third of all staple food in the world is grown with seeds from Monsanto and Monsanto then screws up and the next harvest fails? Famine.
How could a company like Monsanto screw up?
Well, if you take standardised seeds from one source and can't reuse a part of the harvest as next year's seed, you have little genetic diversity. And large ammounts of geneticaly identical organisms are very vulnerable to diseases.
So, what if Monsanto doesn't catch a disease that will kill all it's corn in time?
Didn't something like this allready happen to bananas?
Do we realy want it to happen to staple food?
That has nothing to do with Monsanto, or any big company. Bananas, Apple, grapes, and most fruits are all clones. The same fruit being planted thousands of times. Try using the seed of a fruit you bought and it will taste and look different, yet all apples (from a certain variety) you by will look and taste the same.
This is what happens... it happened before Monsanto and will continue to happen. It's economics. When you find a plant that is perfect you grow, produces a lot and sells well... you will want to only produce that plant.
This has nothing to do with patents.
But as for you concern about a disease getting into Monsanto's crops. It's actually less likely than with non Monsanto, all natural, crops. Since Non GMO crops, the farmer uses a portion of the seeds harvested to plant again... the genetic variation is almost none... se a disease spreading is more likely than with an GMO, which changes every year... since farmers have to buy new seeds. This makes it a single decease being able to wipe a entire crop almost impossible.
The ending got dark fast
Sikij Karki daaamn dark as hell
I didn't fully understand that ending. Can you explain, please?
@@randomdude9135 gene editing in humans might seem unethical, but it also allows preventing terrible genetic diseases like alsheimers or cancer
@@ignaspetrauskas8763 I guess gene editing will end up in countries like China. Democracies will have a hard time justifying that. Especially in US where people don't even trust vaccines so that's that.....
@@randomdude9135 I dont deny the theat if gene eiditng im just summarising what wendover says in the end. But jeah, its still scary.
I’m reminded of Murrow who crafted the Polio vaccine.
When asked why he didn’t patent it and could have made tons of money, he said there is no patent... he said...
*”Could you patent the sun?”*
Great guy.
Genetically modify humans is the next level of Pay-to-Win. This will provide buyers the sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking new genes.
Aiman 😂
there will be random gene loot boxes
This would literally justify being racist, cause now there's a reason to blame someone for not being equipped with the right genes, if you're susceptible to cancer that's the fault of your father's, they should have worked harder to buy you the best of the best. Knowing how business do their thing right now, we will unleash a dystopian world were having the good genes will be expensive as f, effectively segregating the society into 2 groups the rich and healthy and the poor and disposable people.
@@angelenriquechavezponce1629 Nothing would ever justify racism
I'm rather fortunate. I don't need to know whether or not I'm predisposed to have cancer. The comment section already gave it to me.
Most research and development is funded by national funds... meaning that its paid for by the people most times. So something the people pay to develop, is then used by companies to stifle those very people out of their money so they can gain. Rather than just provide a useful product to the people who need it. Because they already paid for it.
Exactly! I don't like that this video poses genetic research as something that must be funded or encouraged by patents and the selling of their contributions as products. As someone who is going into genetic research, I can assure you that there is no shortage of people or passion going into genetic research.
But Darren, how could you ever think ground breaking research is enough in itself? Wouldn't you like to price gouge the people who can benefit form what you and your colleagues discover for no reason?... Its almost like you're human or something. Going for your passion, while getting the warm fuzzies over what you do, might do wonders for people... because you care. Because you're human. Not a profit bot.
That's if the information your quoting is correct, companies like to cry poor but keep in mind!
The bulk of research is actually paid for by public taxes.
The private companies consider PR & commercials to be research (it is not).
Basically they are getting a free ride in regards to research! (a free lunch)
Hmm I misspelled 'you're as 'your' my bad.
Also some one replied why should we believe you on the bell icon (not sure why it isn't appearing here in the comments?)
GOOD be suspicious and investigate more than one source.
Just because its online doesn't make it true;)
As someone who is an actual geneticist, funding is haaaard. Grant applications are hard. Even private companies have to sink a lot of money into R&D. But maybe what you're saying is true for america? It seems unlikely though.
"Should they be rewarded for their years of work" Yes that's why they got substantial grants and funding to find it oh and their jobs.
Aren't those more so to actually create the test rather than profit from it? The point in this case is for them to actually be able to do something with their creation once it's finished. I don't think genes should be patented, personally, but it's definitely a dilemma.
And public recognition and professional advancement.
@@rodentlover100 I don't see where is the dilemma. If the government funds building a road, the construction company builds it for the government so it cannot charge people for using it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
ornot
orye
Or naught
Our Nout
ortistic ornot
Ornat
That shouldn't be legal. It's what's wrong with American capitalism
A lot. About the seeds, original ones have started to go extinct, there is the possibility that the source of all food coming from agriculture will be controlled by companies. You would not be allowed to harvest seeds from crops (or the crops wouldn't produce seeds). Imagine communities in developing countries not being allowed to farm without paying a USA company.
More like what's wrong with the government. Patents are a deal between the government and a company. If there was only voluntary exchange between people (capitalism) there most likely wouldn't be any patents.
This isn't just America, just the biggest companies are almost always in America.
If the companies controlling the seeds and other products didn't have a selfish mindset, the pros would outway the cons.
+aantony2001
Are you sure seeds are going extinct? I gotta believe the seed bank in Svalbard still has some of everything.
Who doesn't want to live in a future where you can sue someone for having genes that you found out existed
The problem with the Monsanto seeds is that some farmers DON'T buy the seeds: their crops get contaminated because, well, plants reproduce. At that point, the seeds are, according to Monsanto, their property, and the farmer is forced to buy from them or else lawsuit.
That's a myth bro
piprod01 Your a dumbass
I feel like the logical conclusion is that the process of human genetic modification can be patented, but the products of that process -- i.e.: the human beings resulting from it -- can't. No one wants their kid to come out malformed, but if preventing that means they're legally owned by the company who owns the fix-a-baby machine, I don't see lots of people sitting by and letting it happen.
"what should be patentable"
The process of genetic screening, not the gene you are trying to detect.
I think patents can be quite useful to fuel research, but the way patents currently work is the main problem. Right now patents are given for X amount of time, thereby forcing a company to make as much profit within that time in order to not be at loss due to the research costs. If, instead, a patent would last until a certain amount of profit was made (e.g. all costs covered + 10% of the costs in profit) then companies don't need to make their medicine/inventions more expensive in order to profit from it, if they keep lower prices, their patent will last longer, and in the end they'll have been able to make the same amount of profit regardless of how fast they did it.
Nienke Fleur Luchtmeijer that sounds like an interesting idea.
...but I'm concerned about money laundering then.
"How look, we haven't made enough profit to lose our patent."
Meanwhile in HQ:"Now, how long can we keep that lie going?"
You might not even need to launder the money if your good enough about lying about how much you made.
chillin chum yes, it would require quite a bit of transparency, but I think regulations to make (farmaceutical) companies more transparant should be made anyways. Also, even if they'd manage to do so, it would still mean that they aren't incentivized to ramp up the prices in order to make enough profit
dont need a notification if you're on UA-cam 24/7
same
same
WHERE ARE MY AIRPLANES
The gene script looks like someone fell asleep on the keyboard
Patent the device that makes the check/scan/whatever, not the discovery
This better have something about airplanes in it.
Genetically modified airplanes
Hmm@@NachDeaDSilenT, looks like a reference tho i don't get it...
Gattaca anyone
Roger DeVeaux or Orphan Black?
we just watched that film today in school in biology😂
My thoughts exactly. And Star Trek as well - Eugenics War.
Looking for this comment.
I love that movie.
That's why research should be entirely public funded. Paid by everyone for everyone. That's the only way we could focus research on what's needed and not only on what makes money.
1905parth That’s socialist.
That could be slower. How motivated would you be if you knew that regardless of the time you took to get your results, you get paid the same salary from public funds?
It doesn't mean there shouldn't be any pressure put on researchers. Just that instead of being paid by a private company they would be by the state. It would allow different research teams to work together to get the best answer instead of working against each other. Anyway i do agree that there might be some flaws with that system, but i do think that most researchers (well at least in Europe where i live) are doing this job because they are aiming for the greater good and not only for money.
CACubed yes it is
Wolves bandwagon fan since 1998 well what he was highlighting is that some people might not have that much ambition, and would be satisfied with their job and salary knowing that they could do the minimum about it.
Oh that's fine, just let the corporations own my DNA, what could possibly go wrong.
you scares me
Certainly seems like patenting genes is a bad idea to me.
Tundra14 well then expect delayed medical advancements including things such as cures for cancer
I'm ok with that, as long as everyone will have access to it when it's ready, not just the elite few.
Patenting is a bad idea period.
Lots of important discoveries were made by the public sector and specific state initiatives. And even with patented technologies, most of the benefits they brought to humanity didn't materialize until the patent expired and they became affordable. Science and innovation would certainly not disappear if you abolished intellectual property.
Sobaken seriously? All I can do is laugh at this statement. Discovery and innovation happening at the state level? You’re joking right? I’ve never heard someone claim that the state can innovate and discover better than private free market enterprise
+Jordan
Most research that produced the technologies that we all use was done by scientists working in the academia, publicly funded universities and labs. Just look up any famous inventor and see if they worked for an institution solely interested in science or for a patent-grabbing corporation. X-rays, penicillin, vaccines, insulin, all done by universities not for profit. Even the breast cancer diagnosis from the video was developed by the University of Utah, before the some of their staff left and started a private company.
That moment when your birth is copyright infringement
Myriad was Ajit pai's inspiration
A guy deregulating the internet was inspired by a monopoly trying to get complete control of a human genome? Are you stupid?
The first point that is made in the video that is the basis of the argument is that no one would want to research new discoveries if there was no financial incentive. This is not true for the vast majority of scientists. People dont go into those branches of research to make money, but to do good for people.
This comment section is full of wise comments, i can't believe I'm in 2017
Just wait a couple of weeks to let it sink in, only then will you realise that it's not 2017.
PowerTrain if the creator is intelligent then the comments are intelligent,it works in almost any example you can think of
Welcome to 2018 mate
They just copy paste "wise comments" from 1781.
2021 is here
That ending just made me rethink everything that has every existed, ever.
Where are the planes? We need more planes!
If they patent the method of testing this specific gene: fine, make money from the procedure, you earned it. Patenting the gene itself? You got to be kidding... FO
''If I should include airplanes in this video OR NOT?"
There are no bad videos on this channel
Patents should be limited (which they are) to allow for an incentive to innovate and profit off their R&D of products which we voluntarily consume. But there are upsides and downsides to every government program which we must take into consideration
What if I get a genetically altered baby. Would it be allowed to have babies or will the company sue my child for "selling" their genetic altered gene by put into it another person and creating a new baby with altered genes?
Allowing your baby to reproduce is a DLC you have to buy extra. Or you can get the "Generation pass", which includes all the DLCs.
If you want to let the baby live you would have to pay for some extra microtransactions
At least in America that would be strictly against the constitution and would result in a hell of an uproar from a lot of people. I highly doubt anything like that would happen.
@@dollgen The Supreme Court has very different interpretations on what is and what isn't constitutional
"GCP Grey" and"this place"yesterday and "Wendover" today wow... what a week !!!
The question of designer-babies is unrelated to the question of patented genes. You can have either one without the other, or both, or none.
The ending of this video was really powerful. Great job on yet another fascinating video
"The real question is not if it's ethical to allow patented human gene editing, it's if it's ethical to not."
Eeeeeh, I don't know man. Both sides are pretty important but to me one prevails, and it's the first one.
Designer babies for all!
To not pursue that technology is to doom millions if not billions of people to painful, horrendous deaths. I don't really see a clear argument that the unknown result of pursuing it is worse.
I'm fine with genetically enhanced humans but I'm not fine with it not being available to everyone, no matter their income. Imagine a world where the rich have offspring who are smarter, stronger, better looking, faster learners and more charismatic than the poor's. This would make them even richer and within generations you'd have a gap that's impossible to bridge. This must never happen!
Penny Lane very true ! But what if it is the course of human evolution. It is the survival of the fittest after all.
Penny Lane it would have to be. If anyone can have their kids have the right DNA for all of the favorable traits, then humans would become more and more similar, likely damaging human DNA over time. Tbh, I say we just don’t engage in this at all.
The fundamental issue is that there is no way to implement this sort of technology like that without massively hindering its development. This sort of embryo editing, once it becomes good enough to do that, will likely be very expensive to do. At that point, you could either outright the ban use of it until it becomes affordable enough that you could make it a public service (Which would realistically just drive the use of it underground, which is never good) or you could try and roll with the punches and accept there will be an unlucky bunch (Keep in mind every human today is classified in this "unlucky bunch") until the technology is cheap enough to become a public service; though with the significant issue of this leaving a mark which pushes inequality purely due to circumstance, but we've had stuff like that before, a century or so and it'll probably be dealt with.
You are so right!
If we were to allow patenting genes we would pathe the way for monopolys controlling the futur of makind.
How can we have a beight futur if we pritty much ensure that a rich minority is going to dominate the rest?
And what do we think is gonna happen once we actually create seperste races of men?
I mean we allready had genocides due to religion or nationality. But what is the futur of a world where all men are created differently?
Our democratie can not survive that. The basic principle of equality is broken.
Even the free (capitalist) market will be destroyed by this because a) the monopoly on genes would lead to mega companies that not only controll their respektive part of the market but expand into far more (just like Amazon or Facebook but much, much larger)
Also if people dont get equal chances of succes in life we will hurt the free market.
Just imagen a 'normal' boy is Born to parents that are too poor to afford genetic modifications. And this boy now happens to be a genius. He will never be able to give his talent and knowledge to the world because he comes from the wrong 'class' of humans. This kind of thing allready happens today but it will be way worse if we allow genetic modifications to become only affordable for certaint groups of rich people
@@CassCassCassime
Yeah it is going to be very hard to ensure that genetic modifications will be distributed fairly without slowing down their developement.
That is however for me exactly the price we should be willing to pay in order to prevent a futur of different cast of humans!!
We can still develope these thing in colleges etc. this will slow down the whole process but it is the only way to prevent a futur distopia. And even this might not work....
Only prohibiting changing your childs DNA wont work.
Because what do you do if someone breakes that law?
I mean sure the parents and the doctor coukd be send to jail and or pay a Lot of money. But.... What do you do with the child?
What could our society do with the illegaly enhanced child? Kill it? Let it life with all its advantages outclassing all others leading to a huge black market of illegal modifications?
Killing it would be very immoral yet at the same time the only solution, as I dont think you can undo the changes once the child is born... That is why a Prohibition is not going to work
Oh man this channel is so underrated
Genetic modification of humans should be done universally, without a price tag. This would ensure we would stay a coherent species, that evolves together, becoming better as a whole, instead of a genetically created upper, middle and lower class. If done otherwise, two things could happen, a class divide caused by some people being able to afford genetic modification with some unable too. Another thing which could happen, is that we split into different, increasingly different species, leading to some species being unable to survive with other human species...
Fucking communist
Love your videos recently hit a new level of professionalism
You could change patent laws, so instead of giving the patenters a complete monopoly you could force producers and salesmen to give 50% of their gains to the patenter (unless a company has been given exclusive right to the patented entity) for the first year after the patent was made, then 25% for 4 years after that, then 12,5% for 5 years after that, then 10% 5 years, then 5% 10 years, 2,5% for 25 years and then, 50 years after the patent was made the subsidies would end. Or something.
Fuck yes.
That’s similar to how it works already. Other companies aren’t completely forbidden from using patents, they’re just required to pay a royalty.
Its called a Royalty stupid!
No it's called a compulsory licence "stupid". Also the way Axel described it does require a change in IP laws.
Having a Royalty sounds like a very good idea but who sets the amount ie 1% of sales price might not make it worth the investment unless its something that would be very high volume but 200% would start to make it prohibitively expensive for consumers like how many pharmaceuticals become so expensive.
Also the term should be limited but again for how long?
This video was sponsored by Myriad Genetics.
Is there not a collective trust of mankind that could keep these patents or ideas? Pay a bit to the discoverers and then anyone could use it
Heres an idea - what if we make patents not time-limited, as they are now, bur revenue-limited? That means the patent expires after the Company got their R&D cost plus, say, 25% (or 100%, doesnt really matter) back as revenue. After that, the patented issue is feir game and competition can kick in.
But then the patent office need to protect against companies lying about R&D cost, making it much much higher than the actual cost
minecraft2048 Obviously.
Im no expert in auditing or corporate compliance, so I cant say how difficult that would be.
So no planes?
lol
I hope you hit 1mil before 2018!
Here's a lasanga recipe:
INGREDIENTS
1 pound sweet Italian sausage 3/4 pound lean ground beef 1/2 cup minced onion 2 cloves garlic, crushed 1 (28 ounce) can crushed tomatoes 2 (6 ounce) cans tomato paste 2 (6.5 ounce) cans canned tomato sauce 1/2 cup water 2 tablespoons white sugar 1 1/2 teaspoons dried basil leaves 1/2 teaspoon fennel seeds 1 teaspoon Italian seasoning 1 tablespoon salt 1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper 4 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley 12 lasagna noodles 16 ounces ricotta cheese 1 egg 1/2 teaspoon salt 3/4 pound mozzarella cheese, sliced 3/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
DIRECTIONS
Prep:
30 m
Cook:
2 h 30 m
Ready In:
3 h 15 m
In a Dutch oven, cook sausage, ground beef, onion, and garlic over medium heat until well browned. Stir in crushed tomatoes, tomato paste, tomato sauce, and water. Season with sugar, basil, fennel seeds, Italian seasoning, 1 tablespoon salt, pepper, and 2 tablespoons parsley. Simmer, covered, for about 1 1/2 hours, stirring occasionally.
Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Cook lasagna noodles in boiling water for 8 to 10 minutes. Drain noodles, and rinse with cold water. In a mixing bowl, combine ricotta cheese with egg, remaining parsley, and 1/2 teaspoon salt.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).
To assemble, spread 1 1/2 cups of meat sauce in the bottom of a 9x13 inch baking dish. Arrange 6 noodles lengthwise over meat sauce. Spread with one half of the ricotta cheese mixture. Top with a third of mozzarella cheese slices. Spoon 1 1/2 cups meat sauce over mozzarella, and sprinkle with 1/4 cup Parmesan cheese. Repeat layers, and top with remaining mozzarella and Parmesan cheese. Cover with foil: to prevent sticking, either spray foil with cooking spray, or make sure the foil does not touch the cheese.
Bake in preheated oven for 25 minutes. Remove foil, and bake an additional 25 minutes. Cool for 15 minutes before serving.
You're welcome :-)
Kristoffer Stahl Directions unclear. I now have my Johnson stuck in my toaster.
Kristoffer Stahl Well thanks! Will try it!
You are so welcome!
thanks bro
This is why we need money for fundamental research
BRB, gotta polish my master's shoes. His ancestors paid for the INTelligence+ By Monsanto upgrade, and mine didn't.
Imagine a patented apple...
There already are several patented apple varieties, and MANY trademarked ones. They got the patents because they DID make that variety.
if I take a hammer and a screwdriver and tape them together, did I make a new tool?
I don't like this video, it makes me fear the future and forces me to think about very difficult problems that take me out of my comfort zone.
Thank you for that
You don't need to patent a gene sequence to recoup research cost: you can patent the testing/detection/insertion technique.
The real problem is we allow people to profit off the pain of others. Medical care should be a collective right. Not a privilege.
One question about Monsanto that you don’t raise. What happens to farmers, next to farms that buy their seeds? Haven’t there been problems with this? Monsanto suing (or whatever they do) these farmers for using their seeds, even though the seeds have spread naturally.
Sverre Munthe Monsanto seed can only be grow once. Seeds of gm crops are sterile. They even made sure cross breeding can never happen. So it doesn't spreads to other farms naturally.
The main problem I have with the patent system is that the patents are too long. From what I can tell, they last 20 years. Perhaps 5 or 10 years would be a better length so that we don't have companies holding back essential medical treatments (for example) from the poor for decades.
Do patents actually promote innovation? In the breast cancer example, it seams the people who discovered the gene were University Researchers and would have done the research independently of making the company and the patent.
Mauricio Juanes they do because its system that provides two very important roles. It Both to promotes the free exchange of ideas, and still provides incentive to innovate. (Although some form of an overhaul could help make it better)
Because basically with out patents people keep trade secrets, so until that secret is free (rather through discovery, charity, or spying) no one can use it. So patents make you disclose what your tech is and how it works. So people can then innovate on top of your innovation advancing the system.
But this makes a problem, why should I innovate if when I invent something anyone can copy and distribute it. Making me pay the cost of all the R&D and logistics to develop it, without getting any incentive back. So to fix this patents give people the exclusive rights to their discovery up to 20 years. That there is incentive for me to develop. Because in those years I can get secured market share, and have a monopoly to recover all my R&D costs and make a profit. With out that ability then individuals and companies would have no reason to try and innovate.
Yes because the potential monetization incentivizes people to research BEFORE its developed. If they knew the product wouldn't have a chance at making money they probably wouldn't do it. Unless its public funded.
GREED - It’s in the human DNA
Revan ...for a price $$$$
I will patent the greed gene.
Aggamemnon populos--I'm afraid it's in the public domain.
Greed? I'd say your own good or selfishness. You using that word only informs us about your bitterness and envy for the so called greedy and selfish. But you have to ask yourself, what is more selfish, sacrificing great things to get towards your own goals and dreams or to force others to give up theirs so you can live the best possible life with the least amount of sacrifice?
Is there an anit-skillshare, so I can degrade as a person? Need a link ASAP ;/
Altering genes in order to prevent diseases ignores epigenetics. These are the factors which determine whether a gene is turned on, or off. Lots of people who have a gene for a particular disease never manifest the disorder because they follow diets or lifestyles which turn the gene off.
The incentive effect of patents on innovation is often just assumed, yet there is remarkably little evidence that patents encourage R&D in substatial ways. See economics.mit.edu/files/12548 for an overview
It not right to get a patent on nature. Finding an existing gene and claim possession is just sick.
Wendover Productions: how about you do a video on GMO's and how they are made. Many are so under-educated on the topic and fear is widespread because of lack of understanding.
If Myriad genetics just patented the tests they were using, there wouldn't have been a problem
I disagree that ideas should be patented. I know this goes against modern thinking, but it NEEDS to be rethought. Just imagine if the first person to discover fire had the ability to patent it, we wouldn't tolerate one person owning fire. If it helps humanity, it needs to be open and usable.
Creating fire and highly complex research are are different
Mr. Kat Shouldn't be though.
Stfu
@@zylnexxd842 no
One problem at the end: genes don't predetermine what diseases you'll get. You can have a genetic predisposition, but environmental factors play a role, too. Editing the human genome might make certain conditions less common, but it won't eliminate them
That ending is dark.
Genetic modification in humans... that's a more complicated topic than you make it look.
Care to explain?
So lets say we have a gene you want, that makes cells produce a given chemical. Lets say we test it on all the cell types of the intended recipient, to make sure the chemical in question isn't doing anything unintended. What do you think goes wrong?
Is it wrong to enable a person to produce insulin? or is that playing God?
Is it wrong to enable a bacteria to produce insulin for the said person? or is that playing God?
Is it wrong to mass slaughter dogs, to harvest insulin for the said person? or is that playing God?
tbh I couldn't care less about god. This isn't about ethics either.
It's just: we do so many thing wrong. What if the gene has some other effect we need to stay healthy? And once this gene is changed in a human and we noticed this mistake: it's already to late. Now this new gene defect can spread among humans.
Do you know the fate of the Banana? Terribly small gene pool. Was nearly extinct once.
If you use the same gene code for many humans with genetic defect you start to drain our own gene pool. Yes, one mutation wouldn't be so bad. But in the long run once parents have more control over their babies' genetic makeup this could become a huge problem.
Just imagine there will be a trend to give babies a certain genetic modification to fit them to a certain ideal like let's say height. Many genes are involved in determening our height. Let's change them with a gene set a certain company sells. That just dramatically reduced the human gene pool.
I know what you are thinking: Well let's just allow genetic modification to cure diseases!
There are several reasons why this won't work. .... buut I really need to go to work now.
ciao, have a nice day
Stefan S
Yeah, because there is a single clearly defined type of ubermensch everyone strives to become, with blonde hair and blue eyes...
....don't be that stupid.
What would stop people from going beyond "just fixing the most obvious problems"? I would wager that non negligible % of humans would be willing to give up their circulation system, as its one of the primary causes of death, and use something other than ribosomes to produce atp in their cells. Like a molecule that's excited by high frequency alternating current, to produce atp like chlorophyll does (if we can't use that molecule for this very task, which seems unlikely.
Since most causes of death are related to the failure of this single organ. Its under pressure, when it ruptures you die, if the pumping fails, you die, if its gets clogged up by a bubble, or by a solid particle you die, if the piping is squeezed too much flow stops and you die, if anything interferes with its chemical makeup you die - and it can interfere easily since its circulated through your lungs all the time which are there to allow gas exchange... ...its the opposite of what i would call "intelligent design".
Tl; Dr there is no such thing as a state of perfection, thus its idiotic to suppose that human gene pool will narrow down because we will approach it.
(and the same argument could be made for genetic drift, thus following this logic all species should die out due to lack of genetic diversity, if they are adapting to the same enviroment for too long)
Not to mention, the small fact, that if you can edit the genes, you don't have to hope for non-hindering mutations to randomly occur, like in banana.
As you can create them.
In my humble opinion you experienced to much dystopian fantasy (mislabeled as sc-fi)
Alright, time to find out what airplanes have to do with gene patenting
To my knowledge, there's absolutely no real evidence that patents actually incentivize innovation, just vague hypothetical claims that they do. This is not surprising, for two reasons: 1) patents make it *far more expensive* to innovate, due to the legal and financial risk associated with doing so due to other people's patents, and 2) especially in research, there's a very good chance that no useful results (ie. no sensibly patentable inventions) will come out of the work, even if a lot of funding went into it.
This has been the problem for a long time with patents and, by extension, copyright - they were introduced on the premise that they'd incentivize innovation and art, but in practice there's no evidence that they actually do either of the two (although there's no shortage of lobbying groups baselessly arguing that they do), and quite a mounting pile of evidence that they do the *exact opposite*, and just get in the way of progress.
In the end, both copyright and patents are flawed to the core for the same reason: parallel invention. Copyright and patents are both designed around the idea that only one party will come up with an idea, and that they therefore should have a monopoly over it. But in practice, parallel discovery and creation of art happens *all the time*, even more so with modern technology, and the similarity of works causing infringement is a serious issue.
The only way to solve this problem is to accept that all human innovation and creation is, in the end, derived from previous work by others; that it's absolutely not viable to use monopolies in this context; and that there are only so many ways to solve a given problem, and therefore parallel invention is bound to happen.
crytocc
Interesting to think about.
Great comment.
It should be illegal to have a monopoly in the medical and life care system.
Gene research should be funded by government and any product developed should be licenced at a minimal price.
Kinda surprised you didn't join up the idea of companies controlling how their genetically modified organisms reproduce with genetically modified humans, and what it would means for an individual that doesn't control their own reproductive rights and must obey terms of use that they were signed into from before their birth.
4:25 And this is where this ALL is wrong. MEDICAL FIELDS SHOULD NOT BE A CAPITALIST FIELD. Simple. They can charge for there work, but in the future from now, medical help, as in you buying drugs or test should be way, way cheaper...Even in Denmark its still costly due to these silly pharma monopolies and there patents...The government should 100% support the discoveries of new medicines and research if they cant do it on there own on more fair terms.
I completely agree. The problem I see in many countries, America included, is all of the profit driven corruption and general problems for the people. It doesn't help that talking about communism in any form is met with a "knee-jerk" reaction due to the unfortunate past examples of communism done wrong. In the end we get something that mostly works, but could definitely get better.
Drug research and medical innovation, like pretty much every other industry and field, has always been more successful under a system that prioritizes private companies and investors funding research.
Marielle ForgotMyLastName it's not knee jerk reaction to communism done wrong, it's a reaction based on the facts of what socialism and communism has always led to and always will lead to. If communism in the past was "done wrong" then please explain to me how it would be done right. And as for the comment on private corporations, almost all major innovation across all fields of industry over the past 75 years has come from private corporations with surplus capital investing and creating new products and services for people to consume. Whenever you have a system in place that allows and prioritizes the privatization of industry and business and where the government's sole purpose is only regulatory i.e. capitalism you almost always have higher standards of living, significantly lower poverty rates, lower prices on basic goods and services, and higher innovation than in countries where a command economy type system is used.
I say "done wrong" because the idea of communism doesn't work well with private interest and corruption. The reason why it's really easy to get a capitalistic system to work versus a very communist system is because it's just easier. People have stuff, and other people want it. There is a general balance of give and take (The USA is not really close to a pure capitalistic country in reality). My perfect system would be a hybrid between the two. Basically the reason it never really works out in practice is because people exploit the system and fuck everything up, or claim it to be communism when it's really something else. If it were communism done right, it wouldn't turn out like the "communist" countries of the past have.
+Marielle ForgotMyLastName Except, that would require a change in human nature or psychology which would take forever to do. That is because most, if not all, work harder for a greater reward and communism is unfair to people who work hard because they are only rewarded the same amount as the person who did not did very little or no work.
No plane videos in a month? 😫😫😵
@Wendover: Regarding patented seeds, it's not that the plants grow seeds which nullifies the need of buying more genetically engineered seeds. These seeds are engineered such that new seeds reproduced from the plant do not usually keep the engineered genes or traits. The problem is if the engineered seeds are distributed without control, it can eventually become easy (ie. cost-effective) to steal the underlying intellectual property through analysing the genes of the engineered seeds.
This is why we should massively increase government funding for science.
Remember, the Soviets were the first to space and the first to make a satellite. The US military played a major role in the invention of the internet.
The market will choose profit over ethics when they come into conflict AND they can get away with it.
Like the rice example, it's not profitable to help the poor who would benefit from it. You could say that for education before public education was a thing.
Best channel on UA-cam. Number two is Half as Interesting
well maybe myriad shouldnt be able to have a monopoly on the patent, maybe you could make a law that states that everyone can use the discovery but they have to pay a certain percentage of their revenue to the discoverer, or that they have to share the patent if they make an offer of so and so many percents of the costs to discover it
No airplanes?
Sorry but I could only think of Orphan Black while reading the title... Now on to the video I’m sure will be an interesting one!
One of my favourite little sci-fi moments was in Stargate SG-1, where out of nowhere the most advanced race they knew died out. The Asgard, or Roswell Greys, announced to their friends that their genetic engineering backfired and they were doomed.
Flaws often are there because they are random, and sometimes that comes in handy. It could be possible that a child that has a gene that makes them more likely to have cancer, may also be able to fight off a disease better than anyone else. We wipe out that gene, and then maybe the disease wipes us out because 100% of all people no longer has any defense.
We cannot handle any aspect of our society without consequences. Why do we think we can do so with the fundamentals of nature?
jane doe the Asgard died off but the technology they gave to the humans was unusable because when ori could track it.
I feel like patents on human genomes should be super restrictive so that monopolies can't be created. Like only a certain amount of times or companies may use their methods if they pay a set royalty to the discoverers, etc.
One of your best videos! Nicely done
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I also think there is a difference between something discovered and developed by a private corporation vs a public university. If the breast cancer gene was discovered by research being funded by tax dollars, the individuals doing that research shouldn't be able to privately patent the findings.
Hercules Rockefeller But you can only discover something once, so this would promote private industries, and decrease funding
If I get a patented genetic modification, do I infringe the patent if I have kids and pass on that patented DNA? That's crazy.
Is the following statement correct; "If a company is not rewarded it will not invest in research" ? Might the opposite be true, "If Monsanto could sell their seeds only once (before it was copied by plants (nature), Monsanto would be motivated to invest in research consecutively each year to make sure it has the best seeds in the future" ? Why would more competition be unhealthy in this case, while it is considered healthy in other business environments ? I believe the copyright legislation has created mega rich companies for doing something right once. It would be better to keep competition high and have everyone work hard to provide customers, patients, ... and "society at large" with the best product or service. I believe copyright legislation is holding us back, innovation is crippled by it.