In a 1955 news show called See It Now Edward R. Murrow asked the inventor of the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk, who owned the patent to the vaccine. Salk In a 1955 news show called See It Now Edward R. Murrow asked the inventor of the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk, who owned the patent to the vaccine. Salk replied, "Well, the people. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"
This book is about a specific case, but it's also about much more, an indictment of the current patent system. Myriad Genetics, a company held the patents on two key genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Everyone has those genes, but women with certain mutations in their BRCA genes face much higher risks of breast or ovarian cancer. Through its patents, Myriad had essentially cornered the market on BRCA testing. The company charged more than $3,000 for a test, and insurers didn’t always cover it. Some women weren’t able to get tested because they couldn’t afford it. And the problem went beyond cost: One woman who joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff tested positive for a BRCA mutation but before undergoing surgical removal of her ovaries wanted a second opinion; because of Myriad’s patents, no other lab could confirm the diagnosis.
The Association for Molecular Pathology along with several other medical associations, doctors and patients sued the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics to challenge several patents related to human genetics. The suit also challenged several method patents covering diagnostic screening for the genes. Myriad argued that once a gene is isolated, and therefore distinguishable from other genes, it could be patented. By patenting the genes, Myriad had exclusive control over diagnostic testing and further scientific research for the BRCA genes. Petitioners spearheaded by the ACLU, argued that patenting those genes violated the Patent Act because they were products of nature. They also argued that the patents limit scientific progress. Section §101 limits patents to "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners, holding that isolating a gene does not alter its naturally occurring fundamental qualities. (Judge Robert Sweet was ably assisted by his clerk who had an advanced degree in the bio-sciences. Sweey's opinion is worth reading as a clear exposition of both the science and the legal aspects of the case. You can read it here**.)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (specializing in patent cases, it was known as the "nerd's" court) reversed, holding that isolated genes are chemically distinct from their natural state in the human body. In March 2012, Petitioners sought certiorari; and in light of Mayo Collective Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit judgment and remanded, i.e., sent it back for further consideration On remand, the Federal Circuit again upheld the patentability of the BRCA genes. Again appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously that genes were not patentable although cDNA was, as it was not a product of nature.
The case was unusual in that the Solicitor General's Office took a position in opposition to that of the Patent Office which had declared that since they had permitted patenting of genes already, to reverse that would just mess up previously decided cases. That the SG's office did so, was the result of compromise worked out by many agencies brought together at the behest of Obama to determine what the position of the government should be. (It's worth remembering that Obama's mother had died of ovarian cancer at 56, fighting insurance companies until her death, and his grandmother died of breast cancer.) The compromise was orchestrated by Mark Freeman who serves a gold star for bringing such disparate parties together. It's also notable that Francis Collins, NIH director was adamantly opposed to gene patenting. He had been a co-worker with Mary Kelly and Mark Skolnick in isolating and linking the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations to breast and ovarian cancers. Skolnick had recognized the monetary potential in their discovery and founded Myriad genetics, over the opposition of Kelly and Collins, which monopolized BRCA testing and made lost of money.
There are some very appealing characters: Lori Andrews, the "Gene Queen" an attorney who was upset with the patenting of a test for Canavan Disease; Michael Crighton, whose book Next and NYT op-eds laid some of the public groundwork for the court cases; Dan Ravicher, a successful patent attorney who became disillusioned with the way patents were destroying innovation and who formed his own public interest firm to challenge patents; Tania Simoncelli, the individual most responsible for getting the ACLU interested in gene-patenting; and Chris Hansen, the ACLU attorney who argued the case before the court.
A very interesting read that raises all sorts of bioethical, medical, economic, and legal issues.
Bruce recounts the history, both geologic and historic, of the active volcanic range in Colombia. It's quite a story.
The Nevado del Ruiz eruption, wheBruce recounts the history, both geologic and historic, of the active volcanic range in Colombia. It's quite a story.
The Nevado del Ruiz eruption, when it came was horrifying. It wasn't one of those blow-the-tops off like Mt. St. Helens, rather an insidious flow of lava that melted several glaciers which then overran rivers and created a mudslide close to one-hundred feet high and traveled at about fifty miles per hour. It literally obliterated the town of Armero and killed more than 23,000 people. Ironically, there was warning. Ham radio operators living high in the mountains who saw what was happening sent warnings, but the local priest had broadcast calm reassurances saying it was just an ash rain so people even refused the frantic warnings of local firemen who had pounded on their doors insisting they evacuate. Only 5% of the icecap had melted. 85% of Armero vanished under the mud.
Following that eruption there was an increased interest in the volcanoes of the Andes and the next on the list was Galeras. Bruce does a great job of illuminating the social and political pressures on the scientists who by now had become quite interested in those wisps of steam coming from the top of the mountain. Everyone wanted accurate predictions of when the volcano would pop off and what form it would take.
(By the way, here is a nasty description of the dangers of pyroclastic flows: "an absolute death sentence that kills not from the heat but from inhalation of scalding hot ash. On the first breath, a person’s lungs react with instant pneumonia and fill with fluid. With the second breath, the fluid and ash mix and create wet cement. By the time the person takes a third breath, thick, hot cement fills the lungs and windpipe, causing the victim to suffocate. There were autopsy pictures of a surgeon opening a victim’s trachea with a chisel.")
As it turns out, a scientist by the name of Chouet had studied the seismic waves before eruptions of numerous volcanoes and he noticed some screw-like motions. "Chouet believed he knew what the signals were saying. Inside the volcano, in fractures in the rocks, boiling water turned to steam. And the steam, under great pressure and unable to escape, resonated brutally in the fractures, creating a high- frequency song like a boiling teakettle whistling an imperceptible pitch." Turns out he was prescient and accurate. Those little squiggles were predictive of explosive events.
On the fateful day, the scientists hiked up to the top and then roped down into the caldera to take measurements. The dome of lava, ever expanding, concerned several of them, but contrary to the pattern and habit of the U.S. Geological Survey scientists, hard hats and safety equipment was not present. No one was positioned on the top to relay radio signals nor did they have emergency medical supplies. Even some untrained journalists were invited to go along into the active volcano.
Nine people (five scientists) died when the volcano popped. Afterwards, one of the gas scientists claimed to have been the only survivor, an untruth, but then he had sustained severe brain injury and needed brain surgery so I suppose a little mendacity could be excused. Not so forgiveable was the appropriation by one of his students of the work of Chouet nor his insistence there was no warning. There was.
One of the Most Important Books of the Last Decade "This book is about why it’s so hard for us to get along. We are indeed all stuck here for a while,One of the Most Important Books of the Last Decade "This book is about why it’s so hard for us to get along. We are indeed all stuck here for a while, so let’s at least do what we can to understand why we are so easily divided into hostile groups, . . Politics and religion are both expressions of our underlying moral psychology, and an understanding of that psychology can help to bring people together. My goal in this book is to drain some of the heat, anger, and divisiveness out of these topics and replace them with awe, wonder, and curiosity. We are downright lucky that we evolved this complex moral psychology that allowed our species to burst out of the forests and savannas and into the delights, comforts, and extraordinary peacefulness of modern societies in just a few thousand years. . . I want to show you that an obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self-righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of our evolutionary design, not a bug or error that crept into minds that would otherwise be objective and rational."I hardly feel qualified to make any kind of judgments on this book having little background in philosophy, especially moral philosophy, so I especially appreciate Haidt's lucid summary of the development of moral philosophy through examples and hypotheticals.I remember several years ago having a visit from the local anti-abortion denizens, nice people, very concerned about youth, etc. They steered the conversation to abortion, their favorite topic. Being of a liberal and hopefully rational and reasoned mindset myself, I described a book I had recently read,The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy by Harold J. Morowitz, James Trefil, a small, excellent analysis of the abortion debate that contains a plea for looking at the issue rationally. I described their suggestion that we need to decide what constitutes "human" and then see when the fetus acquires the capability (cerebral cortex) to be human, etc. etc. To which the response was, "well, I don't believe that." All debate and discussions ceases when that statement arrives. Now, I could have said, well, you old biddy, I don't give a fuck what you believe, I'm trying to find some common ground here." But, my mother having raised me as a good little boy who is always polite to old people, I merely sat there rather stunned. That's the problem. How do you create a discussion of issues when either side can just say, well, I don't believe that.This is not just a conservative or right-wing problem. Try having a rational or reasonable discussion about the merits of circumcision, climate. autism, raw milk or veganism. I guarantee the true believers will immediately assemble with truckloads of vitriol. We all suffer from what Haidt calls "confirmation bias," that is, our gut tells us what to believe first and then we seek out justifications for that belief.Haidt's book reaffirms what has become fairly obvious: we divide ourselves into tribes and those tribes consist of like-minded people which we use to validate our intuitive predispositions. His stated goal is to attempt to find a way to bridge the divide between two different moral world views., and to find a way for each side to at least understand the other's perspective.Both left and right are motivated by the moral foundations of care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. But they differ qualitatively: liberals tend to care more about suffering and violence; conservatives care about harm done to others but not as intensely. Conservatives, on the other hand, place more emphasis on fairness, i.e. getting what you deserve. Both sides value liberty but have differing definition as to what constitutes the oppressor. Similarly, with fairness, each side values it but define it differently: liberals view it from the standpoint of equality while conservatives look to proportionality, i.e. fairness is being rewarded for your accomplishments and if you work harder you should be rewarded proportionally. The biggest divisions relate to sanctity, authority and loyalty. You can easily guess where the preferences of conservatives and liberals lie. Haidt suggests that liberals will fail to gain wider acceptance until they come to terms with those three moral values and find someway to create their own vocabulary validating them. I would add that liberals will have to be more accepting of groups, particularly religious ones (as much as I despise them,) which serve an evolutionary need to discount selfishness and promote group adherence and benefits.To some extent that's why I am so puzzled by the right's celebration of Ayn Rand who promoted the antithesis of group-think by celebrating independence and selfishness, i.e. think of yourself first and what benefits accrue to yourself through your actions. She hated coercion both governmental and religious, in particular, yet both encourage group adherence and loyalty.I just wonder how much of what Haidt says come from his intuitive side (the elephant) and how much from the rational or reasoning part (the rider.)Here's a quote that struck me: "And why do so many Westerners, even secular ones, continue to see choices about food and sex as being heavily loaded with moral significance? Liberals sometimes say that religious conservatives are sexual prudes for whom anything other than missionary-position intercourse within marriage is a sin. But conservatives can just as well make fun of liberal struggles to choose a balanced breakfast—balanced among moral concerns about free-range eggs, fair-trade coffee, naturalness, and a variety of toxins, some of which (such as genetically modified corn and soybeans) pose a greater threat spiritually than biologically."...more
Amazing the books I run across. This was a delightful find, extremely well written with evocative images and pithy, humor-laden sentences: "My IcelandAmazing the books I run across. This was a delightful find, extremely well written with evocative images and pithy, humor-laden sentences: "My Icelandic was too rudimentary for that. It's a difficult language with an excess of grammar." and "The weather was classic Icelandic: forty degrees and raining sideways." There's also an amusing scene where dual meanings of the Icelandic word for ride can be endowed with sexual connotations. Shades of me growing up and confusing scatology with eschatology.
The author, who at the time was teaching at Penn State, and her husband rented a small summer home (really more of a shack) with no electricity or plumbing on the assumption it would be a good place to escape distractions and to write. Not your customary summer home. It was separated from their car, parked at the end of a cow lane, by some kind of estuary. If the tide was in, an hour was required to walk around to get to their car. If not, and a prominent rock was visible, and, to quote their son, they avoided the "sucking mud", they might reach the car in twenty minutes.
Brown had studied medieval literature (Beowulf in the original Old English drove me crazy in college) and had a professor who communicated his love of Icelandic myths. That pushed her in the direction of studying Icelandic sagas and the book is filled with links to an old Icelandic tale to illustrate a point she is making. Iceland has an interesting history and given its long winter nights and plenty of lambskin to write on, evolved a strong story telling/writing culture, proud of its independent, kingless, society, especially before the Norwegians took over in 1262. They wrote their sagas in the vernacular prose, unlike Europe where verse dominated.
Brown is also somewhat of a horsewoman and was intrigued by the Icelandic horse, a breed carefully isolated from any possibility of being sullied from outside influence. The breed has an interesting mutation that permits five gaits (tolt and pace being the extra two) as opposed to the "normal" three gaits. (Her website has an interesting explanation for the chromosomal differences and whether three or five should be considered normal. (http://nancymariebrown.blogspot.com/2...) Most of the book describes her quest to bring home a couple of these unusual horses. The differences in riding style and requirements between what we consider to be "normal" American riding and Icelandic traditions and training were fascinating.
It's a difficult book to classify, part travelogue, part essay, part history, part memoir; but who cares. My only complaint is that you'll want to climb on the next Icelandic Air to check out Iceland and its horses. A great read, especially if you love horses. Except maybe for the part where she discusses why Icelanders eat their horses and why we don't. As with so many things, it has to do with religion (Pope Gregory III) and Norse sagas....more
Cornwell’s book is an examination of Cardinal Newman and the current Pope's obsession with raising him to sainthood. Clearly, the political climate haCornwell’s book is an examination of Cardinal Newman and the current Pope's obsession with raising him to sainthood. Clearly, the political climate has much to do with the decision since the Pope is determined to increase the number of priests by raiding the ranks of the Anglicans and Newman was the poster-child for jumping ship. When Newman decided to abandon the Anglican Church for the Roman Catholic variety it sent shock waves through Victorian England. “It was to the scandalised, an act of moral and social turpitude.” While a great orator and writer he certainly had his peculiarities and several of those related to his ostensible fondness for men, a male priest friend, Ambrose St. John, in particular and this has led to all sorts speculation has to which way he batted. Certainly he must have felt guilty about something as he “beat himself weekly with a discipline until age forbade.” How beatification will affect his reputation remains unclear. He was himself opposed to it, hence his insistence on burial in a compost that would speed up bodily disintegration. Perhaps, “his modesty... stemmed from “his fear the ossifying travesty it would make of his life and contribution.” (p. 17-19)
Newman’s jump to Catholicism was also undoubtedly prompted by his antipathy toward liberalism (read pluralism) in the church, i.e., tolerance of other beliefs and the idea that perhaps one religious view might be as good as another. He blamed the rise of secularism on the rise of “ ‘religious sects, which sprang up in England three centuries ago.’ “ (p. 211) Thus the problem was dissent, a belief that must warm the cockles of Benedict’s heart. We, he suggests, are faced with a conundrum that he foresaw, if not explicitly stated, where the secular government is forced to protect the freedom of expression of sects, which in turn leads to more secularism. His solution was a return to Catholicism.
The evidence that Newman did not want to be considered for sainthood is substantial (even aside from making sure he was buried in compost- to prevent leaving anything that could be used as a relic,) John Paul II went crazy with beautification, making more individuals saints than “all the previous popes put together from the time that the formal process began in the reign of Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644,) interestingly most of them in the southern hemisphere. In order to become a saint there must be evidence of miracles, something the Church of England “was not inclined to endorse” in Newman’s day. Newman himself, finding himself, as a Catholic, in the position of having to defend miracles, took the interesting position that they really didn’t matter much. “ ‘In matter of fact, then, whatever be the reason, nothing is gained by miracles, nothing comes of miracles, as regards our religious views, principles, and habits.’ “ )I think he was way off on this one as many devout Catholics hold miracles in high regard.
I was mostly interested in this book as a cultural --if not anthropological--view of the current church’s beatification process which seems to me totally ridiculous, and really skimmed quickly through the mundane aspects of Newman’s life. In the Epilogue, Cornwell examines in detail the claims by Jack Sullivan who claims he was healed of a serious back condition by praying to Newman, which caused the pain to disappear. (Placebo effect, anyone?) The “medical scrutineers,” as they are called, remarked that Sullivan’s relief was immediate and inexplicable. Cornwell demolishes that quite well, noting that his ability to continue walking after he was “relieved” of his pain and that may have contributed to more damage to his spine which necessitated surgery which was done in 2001. The rules of beatification explicitly note that the “miracle” must be long-lasting (his was temporary) and no intervention should be utilized. The major basis for the “miracle” would seem then to be the more rapid recovery after surgery than the doctors would normally have expected, hardly an obvious obliteration of natural laws.
Harold J. Morowitz, professor of biology, and James Trefil, who teaches physics, both at George Mason University, have produced what I consider to be Harold J. Morowitz, professor of biology, and James Trefil, who teaches physics, both at George Mason University, have produced what I consider to be one of the seminal books on abortion that I have read. They examine the concepts of "life" and humanness. They point out that at the molecular level we are indistinguishable from plants and bacteria -- on a chemical level our cells function the same as brewer's yeast, a single cell organism; and we share a 98.5% genetic (DNA coding) with chimpanzees -- which are also "alive." Therefore, the important question one must ask is at what point the fetus or zygote acquires those characteristics that make us human, for no one would deny that we are indeed profoundly different from other forms of life. The point at which humanness is acquired (not personhood, which is a legal concept) becomes important to help distinguish between the rights of the mother and those of the fetus.
An enormous amount of change occurs from conception to birth, and the authors have examined the biological and scientific evidence to determine at what point this humanness is acquired. From a biologist's point of view, at conception, "two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing." Traditionally the anti-abortion advocates have argued that because the DNA genetic code exists at conception, that is when "life" begins. Morowitz and Trefil suggest that is like saying a building is complete when the blueprints are done. The combining creates the DNA blueprint, but dead tissue excised in a hospital has the same DNA blueprint, and cancerous tumors contain genetic uniqueness, yet no one would call them "life" worthy of preservation. Not to mention the fact that only about 1/3 of all conceptions lead to a successful birth -- nature performs abortions at a much higher rate than humans. (Research being done on parthenogenesis -- birth without conception -- indicates that unfertilized eggs can be stimulated to divide and begin the development of a complete adult: a Gloria Steinem fantasy come true.)
To make a long, but fascinating, story short, the authors propose that humanness begins at the moment when the cerebral cortex is formed and the synapses begin functioning. This is not a unique nor new position. The Jesuit scholar Teilhard de Chardin and the Catholic theologian Bernard Haring have both written that the cerebral cortex is the "center of all personal manifestations and activities." It is here that speech, conscious movement, visual information and sensory stimuli are all processed. The enlarged cerebral cortex is unique to humans, and it becomes a functioning entity sometime between 25 and 30 weeks of development. Coincidentally, that is also when electroencephalographic readings take place. (The absence of EEG readings is now widely used as a determination of death.) Teilhard de Chardin, who was a paleontologist, as well as a theologian, regarded the "development of an enlarged cerebral cortex as almost a second creation -- as a sign from God that humanity is, indeed, special, regardless of the fact that we share a common ancestry with all other life." Hence the authors recommend that in the conflict of rights, until the fetus achieves synapses in the cerebral cortex, at about 7 months, the woman shall choose and her rights must predominate. After 7 months, a loss of certainty occurs and one can no longer deny with certainty the humanity of the fetus, and its rights must be considered and protected.
This book will probably not solve the abortion dilemma, but it goes a long way toward providing a rational and scientific basis for evidence of what constitutes humanness and at what point we achieve that distinction. It should be required reading....more
Loading...
