AMERIKAN HIGH COURT TO DECIDE PATENTABILITY OF HUMAN GENES
We called it here first folks. In Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men, and again in Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas with co-author Scott de Hart, I have argued that one consequence of the for-the-moment successful corporate bid by such foul entities as Mon(ster)santo to patent their genetically modified organisms is that this would act as a precedent for similar arguments regarding genetic modifications involving the human genome: tinker with it but a little, and that particular tinkered-with sequence becomes a patentable object.
Or at least, that's what will apparently be argued by the injustices of the US Supremes(and yes, I know this article is somewhat dated, but the subject matter and its importance are not):
Now, I have just about as much confidence in the Supremes as a moral and intelligent body as I have in Mon(ster)santo's and Duponzanto's GMOS being harmless and perfectly safe. After all, the Supremes once gave us the Dred Scott decision, in which a black person was defined as only 3/5 of a person.
Granted, the above article makes it clear that only certain genomes that have been artificially tinkered with could be patentable, not the entire human genome itself.
But I submit that in any case, if allowed, it's the camel's nose in the door. Does someone who, for example, receives an engineered human genome as part of genetic therapy owe the patenting company a perpetual royalty for the rest of their lives for the use of its genome? And given the propensity of modified genes to be passed to offspring or even across species, will offspring that contract the modified gene be similarly indentured? Or what about the individual who eats from Mon(ster)santo GMO, becomes ill for an entirely different reason, goes into the hospital, and is discovered to have DNA that horizontally transferred from the GMO to his or her DNA? Duponzanto is well known to have sent their corporate Gestapo to spy on farmers' fields and haul them into court if they are discovered to be growing their patented crops without a license (never mind that such seeds can be eaten by birds and dropped on a farmer's land who has never intended to buy or plant the crud). In such an instance, does that individual have to pay a royalty?
And will the Federal "government" have to pay for all these royalties under the monstrous Obamacare? (And let's call it by its real name: Obromney-Heritage Foundation Care). Of course it will, because it's another way that the insurance corporations and medical conglomerates and big pharmaceuticals can pillage the government they so apparently own.
If that sounds far-fetched, think again, for already Hollyweird has released a movie about bounty hunters whose sole job is to go to people who have received organ transplants and so on, and "collect" on defaulted payments... apparently there's a clause in the contract that the patient forfeits their life if they default...
Of course, all this sounds far-fetched, surreal... it could never happen in a sane country or society.
But that's the point. Our country and society is no longer sane. The lust for power has led to such corruption and total loss of human values and sanity both in the corporate world and in Washington, that sanity is not to be expected.
Therefore, don't count on Chief Injustice John "Diana Ross" and the Supremes to come to anything like a correct decision. When morality, metaphysics, and the sanctity of human life are concerned, it doesn't have a very good track record...and besides, even if it looked like it might come to a sane decision, there could always be that quiet "velvet hammer telephone call" in the middle of the night to make damned sure the swing votes "vote correctly."
That said, I still hope and pray we'll be, for once, pleasantly surprised.
See you on the flip side.
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.