Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:28, 28 August 2015

Template:WikiProject Genetics

Pharmacology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

comment

Transgenic production in animals is more advanced than that in plants, so we should not merge this topic under a plant-specific topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridwood (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Content on IP

PraeceptorIP, about this content, please see Oncomouse (which needs a lot of work), but in the US genetically modified animals have been patentable subject matter for a long while now... ] (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, did you read the material? It does not say anything about the patentability of GM animals such as oncomouse. It addresses whether drugs made by putting human genes into sheep are patentable and whether the process for doing that is patentable. NOT whether the sheep is patentable. You are barking up the wrong tree. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why the material was removed, other than to promote a POV. The added material was well-sourced, neutral, and no-where near being OR. GregJackP Boomer! 01:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Praceptor, the point seems to be that in your view (you cite no secondary sources except your own article, twice) a) biopharmaceuticals produced from GM animals would not be patentable, and b) the process of making drugs via transgenic animals would not be patentable. With regard to a), this is so general as to be meaningless and just ivory tower noodling in any case; anybody patenting a biopharmaceutical post-Myriad is surely going to modify it so that it is not identical even in sequence with the natural product. More importantly any biopharmaceutical produced by biotechnology is extremely unlikely to be identical with the endogenous product. b), .... mostly this is "who cares?" It is not commercially relevant and is just a bunch of noodling by you. And it is pure bullshit in any case - see IP like this still being pursued.

The hole in what you wrote (that any sound patent attorney would discuss) - what would be commercially valuable and policeable - would be (along with the biopharmaceutical itself) the transgenic thing making it. For some primary sources, see these patents; see this recent article (specific to use of CRISPR to create the transgenic but has some good general discussion). I can pull several others for you as well. And the whole WP:CRYSTALBALL thing that frames your edit.... good night, Richard. WP is not a place for you to promulgate your speculations and pet ideas. You have a bunch of great experience but you continue to abuse Misplaced Pages by using it as a blog to republish the ideas in your journal articles. Please use your experience to write - and reliably source - content that expresses the range of views on things, giving appropriate WEIGHT to those views. Please. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And GregJackP. Praeceptor's POV in his essay is way outside the mainstream. Patenting in the pharming industry is going strong. Myriad doesn't effect novel biopharmaceuticals an iota, nor transgenic animals, nor bioproduction technologies. Prometheus continues to pose huge trouble for the diagnostics industry and Myriad has tanked some companies efforts to pursue the old/new strategy of identifying the "active" in traditional medicines, but that's about it. Myriad has been no big shakes to the biotech industry compared with Prometheus; there are some edge finding problems, but that is about all. What he is doing across WP to patent law articles, is the equivalent to a tort reform advocate rewriting all our articles about litigation to make tort reform seem natural and necessary. Praeceptor is doing that with regard to advocacy for weak/limited patents. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The first paragraph from PraeceptorIP seems ok, and this could be merged with the Pharming in mammals section. The second cites a pdf from 2012 and refers to a legal case. There might be newer sources like an article in a secondary source. prokaryotes (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

big picture this article presents the mainstream POV in biotech patenting post Myriad/Prometheus. here is a for-the-public brochure on biotech patenting in the EU. See p 14 for what is patentable. no problems for the pharming industry. nada. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, please focus on the content, not the creator. Stating that PraeceptorIP is abusing WP falls close to a " don't you?
• As to the content, I think that Prokaryotes may have a point on the newer secondary sources. I will note that in legal articles, where Praeceptor has primarily been editing, the MOS:LAW suggests the use of both primary and secondary sources due to the unique nature of legal articles. Why don't we just ask him if he can find other law reviews or legal books/texts that discuss this issue?
• BTW, I reverted the removal of the material until we can come to some form of consensus. It seems that it is leaning towards inclusion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class pharmacology articles
• Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles