I read an interesting article from Fast Company about the simplicity of the digital home...meaning that in western cultures the home is not very simple at all.
In any case it is an interesting take by an enthnographer who does some work for Microsoft.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/111/fast-talk-bell.html?partner=rss
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Make My DNA Open Source
Michael Crichton had an interesting OP-ED piece in February 13th's NY Times regarding patents on human genes. He asserts that they stifle innovation with regard to new medical applications and treatments for diseases, in addition to hampering scientists from further exploring a gene and how it functions.
In short the holder of the patent can charge whatever they want to someone that wants to develop an application for a diagnostic test, or do basic research. In most cases of research he says that the investigators choose to study something else. He goes on to say that in countries where there are no gene patents there tends to be a better level of diagnostic testing available. He finsihes by mentioning 2 congressmen that want to remove the idea of patents on gere. What do you think?
I think of the genome as being open source. Under the current system if I wanted to donate some DNA to a scientist to study one of my genes I would be constrained by any patents being held on a particular gene. So in essence I don't even own what is in my body. I should. After all... I made it!
I say there should be no gene patents. In fact any naturally occurring gene or protein should be kept as open source. Keep the patents for the novel, synthetically created molecules, and leave my genome and proteome in the public domain.
Check the article out for yourself
In short the holder of the patent can charge whatever they want to someone that wants to develop an application for a diagnostic test, or do basic research. In most cases of research he says that the investigators choose to study something else. He goes on to say that in countries where there are no gene patents there tends to be a better level of diagnostic testing available. He finsihes by mentioning 2 congressmen that want to remove the idea of patents on gere. What do you think?
I think of the genome as being open source. Under the current system if I wanted to donate some DNA to a scientist to study one of my genes I would be constrained by any patents being held on a particular gene. So in essence I don't even own what is in my body. I should. After all... I made it!
I say there should be no gene patents. In fact any naturally occurring gene or protein should be kept as open source. Keep the patents for the novel, synthetically created molecules, and leave my genome and proteome in the public domain.
Check the article out for yourself
Sunday, February 11, 2007
If Ya Talk The Talk Then Walk The Walk.
Perhaps Australia should have more than 1400 troops in Iraq then?
Howard Slams Obama on Iraq War
"Howard, a staunch supporter and personal friend of Bush, has defied widespread domestic opposition to the war, keeping about 1,400 Australian troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non-combat roles."
"The United States has sacrificed more than 3,000 brave young men and women and $400 billion, only to find ourselves mired in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Even Republicans ... know that more of the same is only going to attract more terrorists to Iraq and make our country less safe."
Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical.
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Howard Slams Obama on Iraq War
"Howard, a staunch supporter and personal friend of Bush, has defied widespread domestic opposition to the war, keeping about 1,400 Australian troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non-combat roles."
"The United States has sacrificed more than 3,000 brave young men and women and $400 billion, only to find ourselves mired in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Even Republicans ... know that more of the same is only going to attract more terrorists to Iraq and make our country less safe."
Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical.
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
