Hacker News Reader

Comment by thepuppet33r | Hacker News Reader

Naturally occuring genes can't be patented, but artificial ones can. Theoretically, you'd never have the artificial ones, but yeah, sticky subject.

https://www.science.org/content/article/us-supreme-court-str...

View on HN

Where this could go was covered by (among others) Michael Chrichton's last novel Next [1] which games this out in some detail (as far as I am aware it's his only novel with endnotes).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(Crichton_novel)

My recollection is that he loved that kind of thing... all of his books showed the clear signs that they were half or more about whatever thing he'd been reading up on and talking to people about lately. I'm sure I read several that had discussions at the back about the real-world aspects, bibliographies, acknowledgements, etc.

I haven't read it, but I know for sure that State of Fear, his book that revolves around eco-terrorists creating fake natural disasters to gin up fear about global warming, (in)famously has extensive notes and discussion about his views on the subject.

What happens if the genes escape ala Monsanto seeds on the wind?

Depends on details. Monsanto doesn't worry about seeds on the wind. The cases I've read have come down to the fact that they escaped to someone who was trying to take those genetics. The farmer planted next to a round-up ready field, and then saved seeds - this would have been fine except the farmer then used those seeds and sprayed round-up which ensured all the plants without the round-up ready genes died and his next batch of seeds was all round-up ready. If the farmer had just used all the seeds without round-up Monsanto wouldn't have cared - at least so far as we have evidence, but then of course the farmer lacks the benefits of those genes.

Huh, hadn't read that context until now. Thanks

The demonization of Monsanto is really something. You should go back to those who've been doing it and reevaluate what they were trying to get you to think.

I mean, they are leaders in genetic use restriction technology in crops. This runs counter to millennia of the farming practice of seed saving for very small farms.

That feels pretty bad guyish. Unless I'm missing something?

farmers want that. last years corn in this years field is a weed you don't want so if the corn won't grow that is good. No farmer saves seed as modern hybrids yield several times better but the children don't.

You're repeating more of the bullshit there. You're talking about Terminator seeds, which were never brought to market, and which don't do anything good old fashioned non-GMO hybrid seeds did (in preventing reuse of seeds.)

which hybrid seeds didn't do, I meant. The point is that hybrids don't breed true, so they nix farmers retaining and reusing seeds as effectively as Terminator seeds would.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com