Well, I think about it like this: Monsanto. Monsanto GMO “product” cross breeds with your organic corn, now your corn has their patented GMO gene in your corn. Now they own your corn. I’m assuming the same analogy applies to human genes, if they so desired.
Please see this report: Moderna Vaccine White Paper – “DNA Vaccines Have a Risk of Permanently Changing a Person’s DNA”. The following is a direct quote from a 2017 Moderna Biotechnology white paper:
“DNA vaccine work began thirty years ago, but as yet there are no licensed DNA vaccines and most remain in Phase 1 testing.
“The key challenge associated with DNA vaccines is that they must penetrate the cell nucleus (crossing two membranes; the cytoplasm and the nucleus). The DNA must then be transcribed in the nucleus into mRNA before moving to the cytoplasm to stimulate antigen production.
“This core complex pathway often requires both larger doses and special, often painful delivery devices using electric shocks or gold microspheres into person’s skin to deliver the DNA vaccine. Once inside the nucleus, DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA.” ~ Moderna Biotech White Paper
SPT v6n3 - Patenting and Transgenic Organisms: A Philosophical Exploration
Spring 2003 Volume 6
Number 3
Patenting and Transgenic Organisms: A Philosophical Exploration
Keekok Lee
Institute for Environment, Philosophy & Policy University of Lancaster
Transgenic organisms: how they differ from Mendelian hybrids 1
In the first half of the twentieth century, the technology of hybridization generated by the theoretical discoveries of Mendelian genetics produced with a greater degree of precision plants and animals possessing characteristics deemed to be desirable than the traditional methods of breeding. However, such Mendelian products, nevertheless, may be said, in comparison, to embody a lower level of artefacticity than those produced by rDNA technology induced by the fundamental discoveries of molecular genetics in the second half of the last century. In the case of the latter, their greater degree of artefacticity is due to the fact that their mode of production involves the manipulation of, and indeed, the exchange of genetic material at the molecular level across species, and even, kingdoms. This then locates them at the pole, which is directly opposite to that occupied by organisms regarded as naturally-occurring. In this respect, they are distinctly human artefacts in the same way as houses or paintings are paradigmatically human artefacts, which ex hypothesi could not be naturally-occurring entities. Transgenic organisms are biotic while houses and paintings are abiotic artefacts. However, unlike houses and paintings, many transgenic organisms are capable of biological reproduction or replication and could, under certain conditions, eventually escape from the human-controlled environment to lead an independent existence outside it. It is precisely because of this possibility, that so much angst and discussion have been generated about the environmental risks which could be involved in rDNA technology. 4
Two assumptions stood behind such recognition of patentability: that artefacts can be biotic or abiotic, and that the products of biogenetic technology qualify as biotic artefacts. Given these assumptions, it was expected that a favourable decision in the Chakarbarty case would clear the way for the numerous products of the biotechnology revolution which were rapidly coming on stream but which were held up until the Supreme Court had pronounced on the Chakrabarty case. After all, the rDNA organisms-be they animals, plants or microbes-compared with those produced by other forms of biogenetic technology, embody even a greater degree of artefacticity. It stood to reason then that rDNA organisms, their products and procedures are all patentable as they are paradigmatically human-designed, human-made, and are not the products of nature.
The use of gold nanoparticle aggregation for DNA computing and logic-based biomolecular detection
In-Hee Lee et al. Nanotechnology. 2008.
Show details
Abstract
The use of DNA molecules as a physical computational material has attracted much interest, especially in the area of DNA computing. DNAs are also useful for logical control and analysis of biological systems if efficient visualization methods are available. Here we present a quick and simple visualization technique that displays the results of the DNA computing process based on a colorimetric change induced by gold nanoparticle aggregation, and we apply it to the logic-based detection of biomolecules. Our results demonstrate its effectiveness in both DNA-based logical computation and logic-based biomolecular detection.
Two reporter systems are used to indicate that a transfection experiment was successful. Plants can be transfected with the Ti plasmids of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. When a plant is infected with A. tumefaciens containing the Ti plasmid, a crown gall tumor is induced transferring the T- DNA region.
Those cells transfected with the T-DNA are induced to grow as well as to produce opines that the bacteria feed on. Much recent research has concentrated on engineering Ti plasmids to contain other genes that are also transferred to the host plants during infection, creating transgenic plants. One series of experiments have been especially charming.
Tobacco plants have been transinfected by Ti plasmids containing the luciferase gene from fireflies. The product of this gene catalyzes the ATP- dependent oxidation of luciferin, which emits light. When a transfected plant is watered with luciferin, it glows like a firefly. The value of these experiments is not the production of glowing plants but rather the use of the glow to “report” the action of specific genes.
In further experiments, the promoters and enhancers of certain genes were attached to the luciferase gene. As a result, luciferase would only be produced when these promoters were activated; thus, the glowing areas of the plant show where the transfected gene is active.
One of the more recent reported systems developed uses a gene from jellyfish that produces green fluorescent protein. The value of this system is that it “reports” when ultra-violet light falls on it, rather than it requiring an addition, as in the luciferase system (see Tamarin, 2002).
H. Matthaei, M.W. Nirenberg
The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon RNA prepared from ribosomes
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 4 (1961), pp. 404-408
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
43
A.I. Aronson, B.J. McCarthy
Studies of E. coli ribosomal RNA and its degradation products
Biophys. J., 1 (1961), pp. 215-226
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
44
M.W. Nirenberg, J.H. Matthaei
The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon naturally occurring or synthetic polyribonucleotides
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 47 (1961), pp. 1588-1602
CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
45
M. Nirenberg
Historical review: Deciphering the genetic code – a personal account
Trends Biochem. Sci., 29 (2004), pp. 46-54
ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
mRNA cannot (by itself, or with anything listed in the vaccines) alter our DNA
They already own us by our Birth Certificates
If they used a technology that altered our DNA (which the vaccines do not) then I think the answer would be complicated. We may have intrinsic rights to genes we had from birth. Natural viruses may have ownership rights claims if they altered our DNA at any point. We could have multiple genes that are patented by different corporations, giving joint custody? And the big daddy in the room, all current technologies that we know of do not have the capacity (yet) to alter the genomes of all cells in our bodies. So would these custody battles only apply to those cells which have the altered genes, so like, one company could claim 2% of your bone marrow from a leukemia treatment?
I think the answer is likely no for these three reasons.
Well, I think about it like this: Monsanto. Monsanto GMO “product” cross breeds with your organic corn, now your corn has their patented GMO gene in your corn. Now they own your corn. I’m assuming the same analogy applies to human genes, if they so desired.
“... United States, the European Patent Office, United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan grant animal patents.[8]”
https://www.animallawsection.org/animal-patents/
Please see this report: Moderna Vaccine White Paper – “DNA Vaccines Have a Risk of Permanently Changing a Person’s DNA”. The following is a direct quote from a 2017 Moderna Biotechnology white paper:
“DNA vaccine work began thirty years ago, but as yet there are no licensed DNA vaccines and most remain in Phase 1 testing.
“The key challenge associated with DNA vaccines is that they must penetrate the cell nucleus (crossing two membranes; the cytoplasm and the nucleus). The DNA must then be transcribed in the nucleus into mRNA before moving to the cytoplasm to stimulate antigen production.
“This core complex pathway often requires both larger doses and special, often painful delivery devices using electric shocks or gold microspheres into person’s skin to deliver the DNA vaccine. Once inside the nucleus, DNA vaccines have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA.” ~ Moderna Biotech White Paper
Nothing found. Found medicinal uses of gold to reduce autoimmune response, toxicity studies, nano gold therapies.
Yes, transgenic species can be patented.
mRNA is a patented biotechnology
Some excerpts from:
SPT v6n3 - Patenting and Transgenic Organisms: A Philosophical Exploration
Spring 2003 Volume 6 Number 3 Patenting and Transgenic Organisms: A Philosophical Exploration
Keekok Lee
Institute for Environment, Philosophy & Policy University of Lancaster
Transgenic organisms: how they differ from Mendelian hybrids 1
In the first half of the twentieth century, the technology of hybridization generated by the theoretical discoveries of Mendelian genetics produced with a greater degree of precision plants and animals possessing characteristics deemed to be desirable than the traditional methods of breeding. However, such Mendelian products, nevertheless, may be said, in comparison, to embody a lower level of artefacticity than those produced by rDNA technology induced by the fundamental discoveries of molecular genetics in the second half of the last century. In the case of the latter, their greater degree of artefacticity is due to the fact that their mode of production involves the manipulation of, and indeed, the exchange of genetic material at the molecular level across species, and even, kingdoms. This then locates them at the pole, which is directly opposite to that occupied by organisms regarded as naturally-occurring. In this respect, they are distinctly human artefacts in the same way as houses or paintings are paradigmatically human artefacts, which ex hypothesi could not be naturally-occurring entities. Transgenic organisms are biotic while houses and paintings are abiotic artefacts. However, unlike houses and paintings, many transgenic organisms are capable of biological reproduction or replication and could, under certain conditions, eventually escape from the human-controlled environment to lead an independent existence outside it. It is precisely because of this possibility, that so much angst and discussion have been generated about the environmental risks which could be involved in rDNA technology. 4
Two assumptions stood behind such recognition of patentability: that artefacts can be biotic or abiotic, and that the products of biogenetic technology qualify as biotic artefacts. Given these assumptions, it was expected that a favourable decision in the Chakarbarty case would clear the way for the numerous products of the biotechnology revolution which were rapidly coming on stream but which were held up until the Supreme Court had pronounced on the Chakrabarty case. After all, the rDNA organisms-be they animals, plants or microbes-compared with those produced by other forms of biogenetic technology, embody even a greater degree of artefacticity. It stood to reason then that rDNA organisms, their products and procedures are all patentable as they are paradigmatically human-designed, human-made, and are not the products of nature.
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n3/lee.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21832585
The use of gold nanoparticle aggregation for DNA computing and logic-based biomolecular detection In-Hee Lee et al. Nanotechnology. 2008. Show details
Abstract
The use of DNA molecules as a physical computational material has attracted much interest, especially in the area of DNA computing. DNAs are also useful for logical control and analysis of biological systems if efficient visualization methods are available. Here we present a quick and simple visualization technique that displays the results of the DNA computing process based on a colorimetric change induced by gold nanoparticle aggregation, and we apply it to the logic-based detection of biomolecules. Our results demonstrate its effectiveness in both DNA-based logical computation and logic-based biomolecular detection.
Full article: https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/1624/3/NT_manuscript_rev.pdf
Example # 3. Reporter System:
Two reporter systems are used to indicate that a transfection experiment was successful. Plants can be transfected with the Ti plasmids of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. When a plant is infected with A. tumefaciens containing the Ti plasmid, a crown gall tumor is induced transferring the T- DNA region.
Those cells transfected with the T-DNA are induced to grow as well as to produce opines that the bacteria feed on. Much recent research has concentrated on engineering Ti plasmids to contain other genes that are also transferred to the host plants during infection, creating transgenic plants. One series of experiments have been especially charming.
Tobacco plants have been transinfected by Ti plasmids containing the luciferase gene from fireflies. The product of this gene catalyzes the ATP- dependent oxidation of luciferin, which emits light. When a transfected plant is watered with luciferin, it glows like a firefly. The value of these experiments is not the production of glowing plants but rather the use of the glow to “report” the action of specific genes.
In further experiments, the promoters and enhancers of certain genes were attached to the luciferase gene. As a result, luciferase would only be produced when these promoters were activated; thus, the glowing areas of the plant show where the transfected gene is active.
One of the more recent reported systems developed uses a gene from jellyfish that produces green fluorescent protein. The value of this system is that it “reports” when ultra-violet light falls on it, rather than it requiring an addition, as in the luciferase system (see Tamarin, 2002).
https://www.biologydiscussion.com/animals-2/transgenic-animals/3-important-examples-of-transgenic-animal-genetics/84652
TY for your input. Interesting stuff !
More:
https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=cdmrp&query=mRNA
My inlaws became human hybrids today. Not patentable in Canada.
Genetic modifications can be patented as well, as in the case of Regeneron's humanization of the mouse interleukin-15 gene.
https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/model-generation-solutions/biotechnology-patents-and-gmos.html
Who developed mRNA tech?
H. Matthaei, M.W. Nirenberg The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon RNA prepared from ribosomes Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 4 (1961), pp. 404-408 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar 43 A.I. Aronson, B.J. McCarthy Studies of E. coli ribosomal RNA and its degradation products Biophys. J., 1 (1961), pp. 215-226 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar 44 M.W. Nirenberg, J.H. Matthaei The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon naturally occurring or synthetic polyribonucleotides Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 47 (1961), pp. 1588-1602 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar 45 M. Nirenberg Historical review: Deciphering the genetic code – a personal account Trends Biochem. Sci., 29 (2004), pp. 46-54 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
Interesting case, as David Martin argues that the patent holder on Covid illegally holds that patent.
And, given the respresented arguments for patenting, irrespective of the work, it is already out there in nature.
However, the process of discovering it, could be patented. Or the machines used to do so. Or perhaps a remedy.
But it all hinges on the idea that cancer is genetic. I highly doubt that. Bodily processes are simply a response to an developed environment.
Interesting side note: Mark Capone? Trying to patent like the CDC/ NIH with covid.
More research here:
https://search.uspto.gov/search?query=MRNA&op=Search&affiliate=web-sdmg-uspto.gov
I think the answer is likely no for these three reasons.
NPR? no thanks.