BINGO!!!!! IT'S STILL ALL ABOUT CHOICE.....as long as Box's parts aren't affect nor responsible...but of course Box prefers to have the women on social services so Box can say...."I helped".....
I'm not sure box was aware it was a level 1 carcinogen like tobacco. He's gone silent and never answered whether he thinks minors should have access to oral birth control(level 1 carcinogen)
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Human DNA belongs to no one - it shouldn't be patented The Australian federal court ruled that isolated human genetic material can be patented. The US supreme court disagrees – and the Americans got it exactly right
In June 2013, the US supreme court held that mutant BRCA 1 human DNA, isolated from the human body, is not a patentable subject matter under US patent law. Last Friday, an Australian full federal court held that it is patentable subject matter under Australian patent law.
It would have been simple to distinguish the US supreme court’s decision on the basis that patent laws between the two countries differ: different legislatures, different statutes, different jurisdictions. Instead, the Australian full federal court took an unprecedented swipe at the US Supreme Court by suggesting that all nine justices of US supreme court had misunderstood the facts, the science and the law.
How did this happen?
To understand it, we have to go back to June 1988 when representatives of the European, Japanese and US patent offices came to an understanding about what to do with patents over DNA. It was less than two years after Genentech Inc had floated on the American stock market. Recombinant technology, invented by Professors Boyer and Cohen, enabled the production of pure human proteins using human sourced DNA. Patents granted over isolated human genetic material extracted from the human body, much like mining claims over alluvial gold, spurred a DNA gold rush.
Patent offices and patent attorneys and their customers, patent monopolists, wanted to cash in. Patent monopolies provided the perfect means to maximise revenues.
It did not take long before the first patent cases over disputed territory came before the courts. In 1989 in Britain, the court of appeal held that DNA was a discovery of nature and invalidated Genentech’s patent claims to the isolated DNA of human tissue plasminogen activator, a naturally produced human protein.
The European Patent Office, which had already granted patents over isolated DNA, was shocked by the British rebuke. It took immediate action. By 1998 the European parliament passed the European biotechnology directive, ensuring that the European Patent Office’s approach was mandated as law throughout the EU.
In the US, the Patent Office which had implemented the tripartite patent policy was granting thousands of patents over isolated human DNA. The policy had become entrenched around the world. It was wrongly assumed to be consistent with US patent law. In 1980 the US supreme court held that “anything under the sun made by man” was patentable, upholding a patent application to genetically modified bacteria that degraded crude oil.
By 2005 over 20% of the human genome was the subject of US patents.
Then in March 2010, the first shockwave hit the global biotechnology industry. A US district court judge held the patent claims over isolated BRCA genetic mutations invalid. They were not inventions. An appeal to the US federal circuit soothed fragile nerves. Then, a second US federal circuit appeal seemed to settle the issue. However, the US supreme court overruled it.
The US Supreme Court held that the isolation of DNA from a human being does not result in something that displays “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature”. It is not the same as a genetically modified bacteria that degrades crude oil. While that bacteria is the product of human ingenuity, the isolated BRCA gene mutations are not.
Since then, the US Supreme Court has been savaged by the patent monopolists. The US Patent Office, which has issued new patent examiner guidelines consistent with the decision, has been vilified.
Patents over human DNA, a material that nobody invented, will, as the US justices’, warn: “impede the flow of information that might permit, indeed, spur, invention.”
The Australian judges, in contrast, argue that: “This case is not about the wisdom of the patent system ... It is not about whether, for policy or moral or social reasons, patents for gene sequences should be excluded from patentability.”
Americans are now free to use DNA to develop new products. Australians are not. Neither are Europeans.
Which is the more desirable policy outcome?
I believe the US supreme court got it exactly right.
The British Statute of Monopolies of 1623, the first statutory expression of English patent law, was a product of economic policy. It sought to provide the ingenious with free and unfettered access to the store of common knowledge and property so as to reward the act of true invention. Human DNA regardless of its form, belongs to no one. No one invented it. And no one should be able to patent it.
this will only last so long until 'control' by value/$ is needed......you'll see.....the future is coming....and so is AI......who's DNA expressed characteristics will get 'chosen'....?????
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
On May 31, 2012 - Paul Tonko voted AGAINST H.R.3541: [/size].[/b]
But YOU supported him in past elections. All of a sudden you change. Is it your employment contract that dictates what you can say/write and can't say/write?
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
But YOU supported him in past elections. All of a sudden you change. Is it your employment contract that dictates what you can say/write and can't say/write?
Of course. It's "one hand washes the other". Everybody is against tax breaks until they get a few crumbs, then their tax breaks are deserved. Or a patronage job, or any other political perk. If downtown businesses paid 90% in taxes and homeowners paid 10%, you wouldn't hear any complaining. Most Americans believe in grand theft democracy, as long as they are convinced they are getting the lions share of the spoils.
I'm not sure box was aware it was a level 1 carcinogen like tobacco. He's gone silent and never answered whether he thinks minors should have access to oral birth control(level 1 carcinogen)
The data may be the same but when I looked it up in the 90s cigs were listed as "Class A", not "Level 1". I'm not sure if they are the same measurement.
Class A meant that the substance was a carcinogen and there was no safe level of exposure. They may have revamped the listing since then.
Some meds are toxic but at low doses are safe. Others are toxic at any level of exposure. What drug specifically are you referring to?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Your hilarious- you have an awful lot of birth control information for someone who probably hasent had a conversation with a woman under 30 since 3rd grade,
Your hilarious- you have an awful lot of birth control information for someone who probably hasent had a conversation with a woman under 30 since 3rd grade,
are you saying only women under 30 need birth control?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, illegal drugs are placed into one of 3 classes - A, B or C. This is broadly based on the harms they cause either to the user or to society when they are misused.
The class into which a drug is placed affects the maximum penalty for an offence involving the drug. For example, Class A drugs attract the most severe penalty as they are considered likely to cause the most serious harm. Drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act are illegal to have, produce, give away or sell.
• Class A drugs include: heroin (diamorphine), cocaine (including crack), methadone, ecstasy (MDMA), LSD, and magic mushrooms.
• Class B includes: amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine, cannabis, cathinones (including mephedrone) and synthetic cannabinoids.
• Class C includes: benzodiazepines (tranquilisers), GHB/GBL, ketamine, anabolic steroids and benzylpiperazines (BZP).
Not all drugs are illegal, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t harmful. For example, tobacco and alcohol can seriously damage your health. And recently new 'legal highs' have been developed to mimic the effects of illegal drugs like cocaine and ecstasy but are structurally different enough to avoid being classified as illegal substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, they can still have dangerous side effects.
Some drugs do have a legitimate use, as a medicine, in research or in industry. To use, import or produce these drugs you need to obtain a licence from the Home Office.
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Quoted Text
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The most widely used system for classifying carcinogens comes from the IARC. In the past 30 years, the IARC has evaluated the cancer-causing potential of more than 900 likely candidates, placing them into one of the following groups:
Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans Perhaps not surprisingly, based on how hard it can be to test these candidate carcinogens, most are listed as being of probable, possible, or unknown risk. Only a little over 100 are classified as "carcinogenic to humans."
birth control promoted by WHO....yet if you smoke you may not work for WHO.....F'EN PRICELESS......STUPID STUPID STUPID
you see.....despite all the rage you are still just a rat in a cage Box........but of course you don't have a set of ovaries or a uterus so you don't have to 'worry', you get to dress up like Captain America.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
What is a carcinogen? Cancer is caused by changes in a cell's DNA – its genetic "blueprint." Some of these changes may be inherited from our parents, while others may be caused by outside exposures, which are often referred to as environmental factors. Environmental factors can include a wide range of exposures, such as:
Lifestyle factors (nutrition, tobacco use, physical activity, etc.) Naturally occurring exposures (ultraviolet light, radon gas, infectious agents, etc.) Medical treatments (chemotherapy, radiation, immune system-suppressing drugs, etc.) Workplace exposures Household exposures Pollution Substances and exposures that can lead to cancer are called carcinogens. Some carcinogens do not affect DNA directly, but lead to cancer in other ways. For example, they may cause cells to divide at a faster than normal rate, which could increase the chances that DNA changes will occur.
Carcinogens do not cause cancer in every case, all the time. Substances labeled as carcinogens may have different levels of cancer-causing potential. Some may cause cancer only after prolonged, high levels of exposure. And for any particular person, the risk of developing cancer depends on many factors, including how they are exposed to a carcinogen, the length and intensity of the exposure, and the person's genetic makeup.
Quoted Text
Human DNA belongs to no one - it shouldn't be patented The Australian federal court ruled that isolated human genetic material can be patented. The US supreme court disagrees – and the Americans got it exactly right
In June 2013, the US supreme court held that mutant BRCA 1 human DNA, isolated from the human body, is not a patentable subject matter under US patent law. Last Friday, an Australian full federal court held that it is patentable subject matter under Australian patent law.
It would have been simple to distinguish the US supreme court’s decision on the basis that patent laws between the two countries differ: different legislatures, different statutes, different jurisdictions. Instead, the Australian full federal court took an unprecedented swipe at the US Supreme Court by suggesting that all nine justices of US supreme court had misunderstood the facts, the science and the law.
How did this happen?
To understand it, we have to go back to June 1988 when representatives of the European, Japanese and US patent offices came to an understanding about what to do with patents over DNA. It was less than two years after Genentech Inc had floated on the American stock market. Recombinant technology, invented by Professors Boyer and Cohen, enabled the production of pure human proteins using human sourced DNA. Patents granted over isolated human genetic material extracted from the human body, much like mining claims over alluvial gold, spurred a DNA gold rush.
Patent offices and patent attorneys and their customers, patent monopolists, wanted to cash in. Patent monopolies provided the perfect means to maximise revenues.
It did not take long before the first patent cases over disputed territory came before the courts. In 1989 in Britain, the court of appeal held that DNA was a discovery of nature and invalidated Genentech’s patent claims to the isolated DNA of human tissue plasminogen activator, a naturally produced human protein.
The European Patent Office, which had already granted patents over isolated DNA, was shocked by the British rebuke. It took immediate action. By 1998 the European parliament passed the European biotechnology directive, ensuring that the European Patent Office’s approach was mandated as law throughout the EU.
In the US, the Patent Office which had implemented the tripartite patent policy was granting thousands of patents over isolated human DNA. The policy had become entrenched around the world. It was wrongly assumed to be consistent with US patent law. In 1980 the US supreme court held that “anything under the sun made by man” was patentable, upholding a patent application to genetically modified bacteria that degraded crude oil.
By 2005 over 20% of the human genome was the subject of US patents.
Then in March 2010, the first shockwave hit the global biotechnology industry. A US district court judge held the patent claims over isolated BRCA genetic mutations invalid. They were not inventions. An appeal to the US federal circuit soothed fragile nerves. Then, a second US federal circuit appeal seemed to settle the issue. However, the US supreme court overruled it.
The US Supreme Court held that the isolation of DNA from a human being does not result in something that displays “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature”. It is not the same as a genetically modified bacteria that degrades crude oil. While that bacteria is the product of human ingenuity, the isolated BRCA gene mutations are not.
Since then, the US Supreme Court has been savaged by the patent monopolists. The US Patent Office, which has issued new patent examiner guidelines consistent with the decision, has been vilified.
Patents over human DNA, a material that nobody invented, will, as the US justices’, warn: “impede the flow of information that might permit, indeed, spur, invention.”
The Australian judges, in contrast, argue that: “This case is not about the wisdom of the patent system ... It is not about whether, for policy or moral or social reasons, patents for gene sequences should be excluded from patentability.”
Americans are now free to use DNA to develop new products. Australians are not. Neither are Europeans.
Which is the more desirable policy outcome?
I believe the US supreme court got it exactly right.
The British Statute of Monopolies of 1623, the first statutory expression of English patent law, was a product of economic policy. It sought to provide the ingenious with free and unfettered access to the store of common knowledge and property so as to reward the act of true invention. Human DNA regardless of its form, belongs to no one. No one invented it. And no one should be able to patent it.
what do we all think will happen here.....?????
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Your hilarious- you have an awful lot of birth control information for someone who probably hasent had a conversation with a woman under 30 since 3rd grade,
This coming from a person that appears to not have had a conversation with an English Teacher since 3rd grade.
God invented Human DNA. Only God can "hold the patent" on Human DNA.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
