Stuff You Should Know - How Gene Patents Work

Episode Date: November 8, 2011

Should a company be able to own the rights to something found inside your own body? In this episode, Chuck and Josh delve into the complicated, controversial world of gene patents. Tune in to learn more about the history -- and future -- of gene patents. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Flooring contractors agree. When looking for the best to care for hardwood floors, use Bona Hardwood Floor Cleaner. The residue-free, fast drying solution is specially designed for hardwood floors, delivering the safe and effective clean you trust. Bona Hardwood Floor Cleaner is available at most retailers where floor cleaning products are sold and on Amazon. Also available for your other hard surface floors like Stone, Tile, Laminate, Vinyl, and LVT. For cleaning tips and exclusive offers, visit Bona.com slash Bona Clean. The War on Drugs is the excuse our government uses to get away with absolutely insane stuff. Stuff that'll piss you off. The cops, are they just like looting? Are they just like pillaging? They just have way better names for what they call,

like what we would call a jack move or being robbed. They call civil acid for it. Be sure to listen to the War on Drugs on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Brought to you by the reinvented 2012 Camry. It's ready, are you? Welcome to Stuff You Should Know from HowStuffWorks.com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark. This is Charles W. Chuck Bryant. This is William Shatner. You have the sound of a man who sounds like he's leaving town. I do. This comes up a lot. It is a weekend. Yeah, I'm leaving town too. Nice. Where are you going? I'm going to see my sister and my two nieces. My brother-in-law is not there, but in Jacksonville,

North Carolina. Very nice. At the US Marine Corps base. Very nice. You're going to go to the PX? Camp Lejeune, I think. Sure. I'll go to the PX. You should get some stuff there. It's all like at a military discount. Yeah, by some camo and ammo. Just walk like you're supposed to be in there. You know, maybe make eye contact with everybody, try to wither them, and they'll be like, oh, he's a soldier. I always stand out like a sore thumb on the military bases. You're like, this is the bad hairy guy. Why is he here? And should I kill him? So you're excited? Yeah, I haven't seen my sister in a while. That's good. What about you? What you got going on? We are going to New York. You mean I? For friends wedding, two friends wedding, two male friends wedding. Hey, awesome. And it's official

now. Congratulations to those guys. Yeah, Mitch and Patrick, our friends on the Facebook page tried to help them out. They were like in a contest for creating barrel weddings, soup steaks. Yeah, and a lot of people showed up and bumped them from like number 20, something like number one for a little while, and then they just got crushed. Yeah. So hats off to everybody on our Facebook page who helped them out. They are very grateful. And Huzzah to them. Yes. Huzzah, indeed. Best wishes from stuff you should know from Mitch and Patrick, eh? Absolutely. Okay, so Chuck, you want to get down to this? Yes, how Gene Simmons works. Or Gene Shallot. Gene Ween. Gene Siskel. Gene Krupa. Well, and with Gene Krupa.

Okay. Gene Patton really is what we're talking about, right? Yes. So very interesting. I have, I agree, interesting and terrifying. Yeah. And by the way, I just want to go ahead and say that there is a documentary, companion documentary that's required viewing for this one. It's called The Corporation. If you have Netflix, it's streaming on Netflix. You can also order the DVD or whatever, but you could watch it literally right the second. It's probably all over YouTube too. It's like one of those docs. Yeah. Very well made. Good stuff. I still haven't seen that. It touches on a lot of stuff in here and just goes into greater depth. So I say, check out The Corporation. It's a good documentary either way. But let me, let me give you a little

story here. All right. There is a condition. It can be congenital. It can actually be acquired, strangely enough, although I didn't find out how, but it's called growth hormone deficiency. All right. Okay. And basically it just means that you are short. You're smaller in stature than is average, right? Sure. Maybe you're smaller than the rest of your family members. Who knows? But the point is your pituitary glands aren't producing enough growth hormone. Is that like a manual Lewis? I imagine that he has some sort of growth hormone deficiency. I think it's an umbrella term, but yes. The good thing is, is it's treatable and it's been treatable for a while. And we knew for a very long time where to get the treatment, where to get

human growth hormone. Okay. And that was extracting it from the pituitary glands of cadavers. Cool. Up until the seventies, if you had growth hormone deficiency and you were given injections, the stuff they were injecting you with was extracted from cadavers pituitary glands. But it was still good to go. It was. It worked. Yeah. Wow. But it was very, very expensive. I mean, the extraction process, getting your hands on a dead body. I mean, there's a lot of factors involved. And then in the, until the 1980s, when a company called Novo Nordisk got a patent for a product called Nanormon. Nanormon. Yeah. It's just a mouthful that it had created in 1973, but it didn't get a patent until 1982.

Couldn't they just call it go juice? Yeah. You know, or grow juice. That would be much more appropriate. Right. Okay. We'll figure that out later. So the history to me is one of the most interesting parts here. And we'll get to 1982, which was a landmark year in this field. But let's back up, Josh. Yes. Let's use the Wayback machine because we haven't done that in a while. Oh, wow. It has been a while. Right. There's a cobweb in here. Ooh, it's musty. Somebody's been eating cheese too. Yeah. There's like wrappers here. Processed cheese. Interesting. So let's go back in time. There were three rulings over the years, starting in 1853, that sort of led to what we're talking about, but they weren't consistent. They sort of flip-flopped

on the subject. In 1853, Robert Morse of the Telegraph fame was initially denied his patent because part of it involved electromagnetism, a key part of it. Right. And they said, you can't patent electromagnetism. No. Why? Silly boy. Because it's a principle of nature. Right. It's like, my device uses that cloud right there. So I'm going to patent that cloud. Right. Like, you can't patent a cloud. Well, what about the process that makes clouds? No, you can't. It's nature. That's natural. You can't patent nature. And this was back when the U.S. Patent Office was the God-fearing U.S. Patent Office. And they knew what to issue patents for and what not to. Not the crazy cuckoo mixed up patent office of today. That's right. Where you can patent thoughts and

dreams. Might as well. I'm patenting you, Chuck. Actually, I'm not already. Okay. And you owe me $10 for even saying that. So following that, the second ruling in 1912, another court ruled that you could patent adrenaline because it's a distilled type of adrenaline that was treated in a lab outside the body. And it was different than the natural adrenaline inside the body. Right. Then after World War II, another ruling reversed it again. And the Supreme Court said, I'm sorry, you cannot patent this mixture of bacteria that you're making in your lab. Right. Even though it doesn't exist in nature. Yeah. And this would later become a real touchstone in this argument. Like, does this exist in nature? Like that cloud right there. Sure. It's natural. You can't patent

it. Right. But could you patent a process or a cloud that you can create in the lab that nature doesn't produce and maybe isn't capable of producing? That's where it gets hairy. Yeah. The war on drugs impacts everyone, whether or not you take drugs. America's public enemy number one is drug abuse. This podcast is going to show you the truth behind the war on drugs. They told me that I would be charged for conspiracy to distribute 2,200 pounds of marijuana. Yeah, and they can do that without any drugs on the table. Without any drugs, of course, yes, they can do that. And I'm the prime example of that. The war on drugs is the excuse our government uses to get away with absolutely insane stuff. Step out of piss y'all. The property is guilty.

Exactly. And it starts as guilty. It starts as guilty. Cops, are they just like looting? Are they just like pillaging? They just have way better names for what they call like what we would call a jack move or being robbed. They call civil acid for it. Be sure to listen to the war on drugs on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, it's Chuck Wicks from Love Country. Talk to Chuck, where we bring you what's really happening in the country music family. We also, if you love country, here's the deal. If you love country music, you can be on the podcast. So if you're a fan country music, well, you can call in anytime. Like, oh, I wouldn't talk about this.

Hulk Hogan called in season one. He's like Chuck. I love your podcast. I mean, Jason Aldean, Jimmy Allen, Carly Pierce, Lauren Elena, so many huge stars have been on Love Country. Talk to Chuck. Season two is going to get even better. Going to have the same big, giant, huge stars, but I think it's time to bring some people in the studio right off the street. You love country music? Fine. Come talk to Chuck. That's how cool we are. I'm just saying it. I'm saying it out loud. Listen to new episodes of Love Country. Talk to Chuck every Monday and Thursday on the Nashville Podcast Network, available on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Another big step forward was the Plant Patent Act of 1930. Yeah. Thanks to a dude named Luther

Burbank, which is a pretty rockin' name, I think. It is. Oh, that's my new hotel name. Luther Burbank. Yeah. It's pretty cool for an early 20th century white dude. Yeah. He was a botanist and he created more than 800 strains and varieties of plants, including the Shasta Daisy, the Fire Poppy, and the White Blackberry. I'm a fan of the Shasta Daisy. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Luther Burbank. I see him wearing four-finger rings. Oh, yeah. This is Luther or Shasta. So he was obviously pretty inspired to create plants and they said, you know what? That's pretty neat, though, that you can do all this stuff. So you should be allowed to. We're going to pass this Plant Act. But don't even try to patent bacteria. Again, there's a problem with bacteria that the court has always traditionally

disallowed. Apparently, they consider bacteria more natural life than a hybrid plant. It's true because of the next case. And that Plant Patent Act, really, that is a big deal, even just beyond what we're talking about. Yeah. And we'll get to that later, what effects that that has had. Siege. Yeah. And then there's also a Plant Protection Act of 1970 that also allowed patents as well. But again, disallowed bacteria. Bacteria keeps getting kicked around, kicked around, kicked around until 1980. Right? Was that a Diamond v. Chakrabarti? Yeah. Yes. Ananda Chakrabarti worked for GE, developed a bacterium that could break down crude oil and said, hey, we should use this for oil spills. Yeah. Very useful. Great idea. The Court of Customs and Patent

Appeals. I'm sorry, it was initially rejected. And then the Customs and Patent Appeals Office overturned that saying that the fact that it's alive has no significant purpose in our patent office. Right. And also, you left out that Chakrabarti created a bacteria that didn't exist in nature. Oh, it was brand new. It was recombinant. He made it himself. That's pretty cool. Yes. But then the Supreme Court... He was God to the bacteria. Right. The Supreme Court then argued the case. And in 1980, Warren Berger wrote that whoever invents, and this is very key, moving forward, whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process machine, manufacture, or, and this is the key, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof may obtain a patent,

therefore, subject to the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Ergo, ipsum, facto. But composition of matter is the key three words there. Right. There's a big difference between a product of nature or a principle of nature and the composition of matter, which could be anything from, you know, using two types of metal to create an alloy or... Insulin....creating two types of DNA to create, yeah, something like insulin. And by the way, Diamond in Diamond v. Chakrabarti is... Diamond was the head of the patent's office. He fought against it. Yeah, he sued him to be like, no, this is wrong. Wouldn't you feel like you were in trouble if the head of the patent's office was suing you? Yeah. Like, it just seems worse, you know. But he won. Sidney Diamond. Yeah. And that

changed everything. Within two years, the first patent for... The first gene patent, what we would call a gene patent, was issued to the University of California. Go Bears. Yeah. For a hormone engineered to... I guess for milk production. I'm not sure. I know it was involved in breast cancer treatment, but I don't know exactly what it did. I got you. And then the same year, insulin was patented. We're a common insulin. Which was huge. Also, so that was the same year that Novo Nordus got its patent for nanomon. Nanomon. So clunky. The human growth hormone product. Yeah. So that really just kind of opened up the floodgate. Chakrabarti changed everything. And that shows up in the Corporation too. It's pretty interesting how they talk about that. Oh, really? And... But really,

I guess as far as gene patents go, the real moment when everything changed was in the late 90s, when this little-known group at the time popped up in the media and said, hey, we're almost finished entirely mapping the human genome. And the U.S. patent office workers went, and there's a flood of patent requests, right? One was for Pandora radio. Right. Yeah. Wasn't that, based on that, the music genome project? What's it? I think so. I would imagine if that's what they called it. Or inspired by it at least. Right. But yeah, everyone lined up all of a sudden. It's like, oh, patent this, patent that. Right. They'd be like, I heard about this genome. I want to patent it. I want to patent this one. And so they were inundated with it. And so in

2001, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the USPTO, issued new guidelines saying, okay, yes, anybody can apply for a patent, but you have to know what you're talking about. You have to know what the gene does, or you have to come up with some process using this gene. There has to be criteria, everybody. Incredible use. Yeah. There has to be criteria. Sure. And that definitely allowed some of the high, there was a high water mark in the tide ebbed a little bit. A little bit. But currently, I believe, which was the initial stat, there are three to 5,000 human gene patents right now. In the U.S. alone. Yeah. 47,000 involving inventions like equipment involving genetic material. Or insulin is another example. Yeah,

true. It's an invention using genetic material. But there are more than three million on file as applicants. Yeah. Patent pending. Sure. And that's with the tide ebbing. I hope it's ebbing. And I think that's just in the United States again, isn't it? Yeah. And the United States, and there's plenty in Europe and Japan, basically Europe, Japan and the U.S. are the leaders in issuing patents for this kind of stuff. Like basically, if you want to push the rest of the world around, you go get a patent at one of these areas patent offices. So let's talk specifically about the U.S., right? Let's talk patents. Yeah. If you want to get a patent, you have to meet some criteria. It doesn't matter what the patent's for, whether it's for the Dippy bird or for human

growth hormone. And so for any invention to get a patent, to be approved for a patent, it has to meet four criteria, right? It has to be useful. It has to be non-obvious, right? Like it can't be a shoestring? I don't know. I would have non-obvious. What would an obvious one be, I wonder? An obvious invention would be, man, I don't know. I'm just curious. Maybe using peppermint to fight bad breath? Maybe. So obvious. Yeah, that's obvious. Sure. Anybody can do that. You can't patent that. There you go. There's a non-obvious example. It has to be novel, right? Yeah, sure. And it has to meet the enablement criterion, which is a big deal. And this is pretty much the whole reason patents exist. One of the big reasons. Yeah, it's got to have detail. It can't be just a big

broad esoteric thing. It's got to be detailed enough where someone in that field can figure it out and use it. Right. And this is one of the major reasons the patent office exists. It's to say, okay, thank you for sharing your findings with the rest of the world. We're going to give you 20 years of exclusivity. Yeah. But in return, you're being totally transparent. Here's all of the processes. Here's all the notes. Here's anything that anybody working in your field can look at and use to build upon your research or bank it pay you. Well, but can they gank it and change it enough to where it doesn't? You can. Those are called patent trolls. And apparently they're a big problem right now. They're thwarting technology. I think tech stuff did something on patent

trolls recently. Interesting. Yeah. The war on drugs impacts everyone, whether or not you take drugs. America's public enemy number one is drug abuse. This podcast is going to show you the truth behind the war on drugs. They told me that I would be charged for conspiracy to distribute 2,200 pounds of marijuana. Yeah, and they can do that without any drugs on the table. Without any drugs, of course, yes, they can do that. And I'm the prime example of that. The war on drugs is the excuse our government uses to get away with absolutely insane stuff. Stuff that'll piss you off. The property is guilty. Exactly. And it starts as guilty. It starts as guilty. The cops, are they just like looting? Are they just like pillaging? They just have way better names for

what they call like what we would call a jack move or being robbed. They call civil acid. Be sure to listen to the war on drugs on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Chuck Wicks from Love Country Talk to Chuck, where we bring you what's really happening in the country music family. We also, if you love country, here's the deal. If you love country music, you can be on the podcast. So if you're a fan of country music, well, you can call in anytime. You'll be like, oh, I want to talk about this. Hall Cogan called in season one. He's like, Chuck Larkster. I love your podcast. I mean, Jason Aldean, Jimmy Allen, Carly Pierce, Lauren Elena, so many huge stars have been on Love Country Talk to Chuck season two.

It's going to get even better. Going to have the same big, giant, huge stars, but I think it's time bring some people in the studio right off the street. You love country music? Fun. Come talk to Chuck. That's how cool we are. I'm just saying it. I'm saying it out loud. Listen to new episodes of Love Country Talk to Chuck every Monday and Thursday on the Nashville Podcast Network, available on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. So if you are issued a patent, you get 20 years of exclusivity. Nobody can use it, market it, sell it, anything as to do with your invention or process unless they pay you. They have to go through you and you license it and reap the benefits. Right? Yeah. And the reason it was

such a mad rush when the genome project was first completed because obviously the first person to invent something gets the patent. So if you can prove that, then that's yours for 20 years. So well, that's based on the first to invent principle. Yeah. Right. Exactly. So you have to prove that. And then after that, you've got it for 20 years and everyone was in a big rush to be the first with these gene patents. Have you heard the story of Alexander Graham Bell and Elijah? What was his name? You mean the real guy who invented the telephone? Yeah. What's his name? Oh, is that the case? I knew there was some stink there, but I wasn't sure. Elijah Gray. Apparently Elijah Gray invented a telephone that looked and worked way, way more like the ones we use today. It was a

cell phone, actually. I should say the ones we use in the 70s and 80s. Exactly. It wasn't a cell phone, but the kind, the rotary dial, all that. But Alexander Graham Bell beat him to the patent office. Now, did he steal his ideas or was it just concurrent? I think it was independent. Okay. And I can't remember what that's called, but there's, there's an idea that like, you know, oh, the zeitgeist. Right. We're all, you know, ideas kind of float out there for anybody to latch onto and sometimes people do independently. I wonder how far apart they were from each other in being completed. And like, I wonder if it was literally like, my horse fell sick that day and I couldn't make it to the office. But Bell did. I don't remember

how close it was, but it wasn't that close. It was pretty close. So the patent office has this first to invent principle where it's not necessarily like who beat who to the patent office. It's, if you have a situation like that, who's been working on this longer, or who reached a landmark longer, and then that's who gets the patent. Yeah. That's why there was, like you said, that mad rush, because, you know, it's like, I noticed this first. So let me go ahead and get my patent in. Well, and with the case of like insulin or any of these gene patents, really, you can't just say like, Oh, I got this thing. Like you, they have to have it on file, which is something I never knew. There are 26 culture depositories around the world. Thanks to, this is such a mouthful,

thanks to the Budapest Treaty on the international recognition of the deposit of microorganisms for the purpose of patent procedure. So basically it's like a repository where you send in your sample, right? Yeah. Isn't that the way I understand it? Right. And there's 26 of them worldwide, right? Yeah. And if it is a product of, if it's something you remove from the body and processed, the patent only applies to the very end result that you send in. Right. Not like the little stages along the way. Although you can patent those stages. Yeah, but they just have to be independent of one another. Right. Yeah. All right. So you've submitted your sample to a depository. You have applied for the patent. It's been issued. You're good to go. What are you

patenting? Right? Like, I think there's a huge misunderstanding among the public that you're walking around and there's some company owns the rights to your genes. True or false? False. That is false. Okay. I mean, a gene patent is kind of a misnomer. It's a pretty big misnomer actually because there's certain criteria that have to be met. Like you have natural, what is it? Natural matter? Is that what it's called or something of nature? Composition of nature. Yeah. Genes are a composition of nature in your body. To patent something, you have to extract genes and get them to do like, you know, jump through a flaming hoop outside of the body. Then you have something called composition of matter. Yeah.

Right. So what are some of the things that people are getting gene patents for? Well, it breaks down, my friend, into four categories pretty much. You want to go one at a time? Yeah. For a change? Diagnostics. That means they're looking to patent a method basically. Generally, it tests for genetic differences, abnormalities, spotting genetic markers and cancer, Alzheimer's, stuff like that. Right. Pretty nice way to use your time, I think. It is, but it's also very controversial as we'll see in a little bit. Well, not all of it is, but three of the four are. Right. And with diagnostics, what you're patenting is, in fact, the gene that you're looking at or the genes involved and the mutations. Right. So you have a bunch of different possible mutations

for cancer. That's a complication for sure. Right. But a very sharp company. And by the way, by saying, you need to know what you're talking about or you need to put some sort of research into this. Basically, excluded schmos like you and I from getting gene patents and just said huge laboratories, huge corporations are the only ones who can possibly get gene patents now. Yeah. So if you have a very sharp laboratory, a very sharp corporation, they're going to have a patent for every possible mutation for a specific gene. And then ultimately, what they're patenting is the screening process, the test. Yeah. Exactly. Used to evaluate these mutations. So that's number one. Functional use is the second. That is pretty much just discovering roles played

by genes. They're usually issued for drugs that affect the functioning of the genes. Yeah. So I guess insulin would be that. No, insulin is composition of matter. Okay. So functional use would be like, we understand that this mutation on this gene causes this to happen. So we're going to create a drug that makes the gene act normally, express normally, something like that. And that's the future of pharmaceuticals is genetically tailored drugs. Because right now, when you take a drug, right, Tylenol or something, you're just throwing something in the wind and hoping it works, right? Yeah. Genetically tailored drugs. It's like, they'll look at your genetic composition and then say, well, this is the drug you need,

and it will work 98% of the time. Right. And it will work 100% effectively. And that's 98% of the time. $100,000, please. Make a check out to Merck. Process is the third type of patent on this category. And that's pretty easy. That's basically protecting a method by which the genes are extracted or manipulated. And it's the least controversial. Yeah. Out of all these, because it's not, it's a more traditional kind of patent. Right. This is like science. Yeah. Yeah. And then you have composition of matter. That's a big one. Yeah. Composition of matter and diagnostics are the two most controversial. Composition of matter is like human growth hormone, insulin, stuff that saves lives.

But it's an invention, quote unquote. It is. I mean, like creating human growth hormone using E. Coli to string together amino acids, that's an invention. It hats off to you. Sure. So what's, what's the controversy? What's the problem with gene patents with issuing 20 years of exclusivity to somebody who, you know, teaches E. Coli to string together amino acids? Well, there's a couple of different controversies. One, the ethical and social and economic. The other is the legal. As far as legal goes, if you're against it, you're going to argue that, dude, these are your genes. There is nothing more natural than the genes in your body. Right. So of course you can't patent them. And it doesn't matter what you do to them.

Like it's still based on this product of nature. Yeah. That just leave it alone. Like this should be, this, this is the heritage of humankind. Yeah. It's us. It's what makes us us. Of course we shouldn't be issuing patents to corporations. On genes. Yeah. Say, say the critics of gene patents. Proponents would say, Hey, dude, if we can extract this from the body and manipulate it many times to the point where it's not even the same as before, then of course you should be able to patent that. Right. And, and that's one of the reasons why we have patents is to reward innovation, to reward very smart people and to encourage more innovation and research and things that save lives. Like, so you don't have to extract growth hormone from the

pituitary glands of the dead. Myriad genetics. Should we talk about that? It's a good example. This is a big one. They filed seven patents relating to RCA1 and BRCA2. Basically what they developed was a test kit for breast and ovarian cancer. Right. And these, these two genes account for, I think like 15% of breast or ovarian cancer. I think breast cancer. Right. So it's pretty substantial. And Myriad got a patent on the screening kit that they created and they promptly turned around and sent letters to just about every cancer screening laboratory in the world. Right. And said, Hey, we hear that you guys are saving people's lives. It's awesome. I think keep up the good work. Just make sure that you send all of your cancer screening

when it relates to these two genes to us and we'll do it and we're going to charge you for it. Right. And throughout the world, people in lab laboratories threw these letters up in the air and, and clucked their tongues and stroke their beards in anger and strutted about their flasks. Right. And in Canada, it was just overtly ignored. The Canadian government itself stepped in. It was like, you don't need to listen to these crackpots. In Europe, it was very controversial. I think it's largely ignored. So it's upheld, I think in the U S because this was the country that issued the patent, but elsewhere they're like, we're not listening to you. And for a long time, myriad didn't do anything. There wasn't any lawsuits. Right. And then there was one. And in

2010, the company was turned down. Yeah. Well, the U S district court said, No, we're not, we're not going to support this. And then in 2011, Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit overturned that lower court's decision. So it went up one step higher and myriad got satisfaction. They got myriad satisfaction. Yeah. You know, that means 30,000. It's an actual number. Myriad. Yeah. Just like decimate is 10%. Right. But this is one that I'm on the side of people using it correctly because I can't stand it when someone says like, I had a myriad of, yeah, when it's supposed to be just myriad. I had 30,000 costs. See, that's where I disagree with the 30,000 part. Yeah. Like say it correctly, but come on. Or you could just say like, I had a myriad of costs

and then wink after we're like, I don't want to talking about them. Just pull my finger. Yeah. So the myriad case continues. I did. I did like when it was initially ruled against the, the ruling judge. He sounded sort of like a who was Andy Griffiths judge character or no lawyer care. Matlock. Matlock. It's a, that's a lawyer's trick. Yeah. That's what he called it. Yeah. And then they had Supreme Court said, No, it's not a trick. Yeah. They modified it. Your honor, I don't know spit about lawyer, but I do know the human heart. Yeah. I never saw that show. I didn't either, but there was a good sign that live send up of it. Of course, Phil Hartman did RIP Phil Hartman. Yeah. So ethical social challenges and controversies.

This is where it gets hot. Yeah. And I guess we should say like, we just kind of left it like myriads up in the air. That's the standard for what's going on in the U S right now as far as gene patents go. And that was just a few months ago. The patent office is honoring its obligations. And then the courts are people are suing people and the courts are just going all over the place. Yeah. So it's just totally up in the air, whether or not this is going to be allowed or what kind of standards will eventually sure adopt. We're in the heat of this. Yeah, we are. All right. So yeah, let's talk about ethical, the ethics of this, right? Yeah. I mean, it's sort of along the same lines in a way as the legal challenges because proponents are going to

say, you know, this, this is great for research. If you don't, if you don't allow this, then companies aren't going to be able to make a profit from this. So there's going to be no incentive if to continue this kind of research, which is going to stop. And this research is important. Like you can say what you will about myriad, but their screening test saves lives, right? Absolutely. And if they invented it, then this sort of breaks down almost into private sector capitalism versus because if the private sector dried up because they couldn't make any money off this stuff, all the research would be left to government funded laboratories, right? Oh yeah. It's very much divided among capitalist socialist lines. And I think though that people who normally

wouldn't consider themselves socialists are falling into the critics camp. Yeah. Just from the, just the idea of, you know, having gene patents out there. It's, it is something that I think a lot of people think should just belong to all humankind. But the, the free market proponents do make a pretty good case that, you know, if that, if you don't reward innovation and invention and clever life-saving techniques monetarily, then you have a problem. On the other side though, you can say, well, you're also issuing monopolies on things that like are life-saving that a company can charge whatever they want. Like what will you pay to find out, you know, whether you have cancer? Right, right. Or what will you pay for a drug that will get rid of your cancer? Chuck Bryant,

because we know your genetic makeup and we know that this will work perfectly with your genetic makeup. How much will you pay for that? And we're the only company you can get it from. I'd pay everything I had. Yes, you would. You know, and so would, you know, every other person who had the same or similar genetic makeup as you. Which is problematic. Yeah, it is. And also, if it, if it cures your cancer, but then three weeks later, your head explodes, but it doesn't happen in everybody, that company has zero incentive to make its product so that it doesn't make, you know, 30% of people's heads explode because it has a monopoly. What are you going to do? You're still going to buy this thing, right? Another argument for is that at least what this process does is

creates transparency and research. It's all out there. Everybody knows there's, people might not be wasting their time duplicating research, A, and B, people can build on your research and it will propel it further into the future. Should pretty good argument there. Yeah, but you can understand why this is not a cut and dried argument. Well, the AMA says we know likey. Yeah, the AMA saying like that this won't help support research for the American Medical Association. It's saying that it will inhibit research on genetic disease. And basically, even worse than that, it will inhibit access for the average person. So I want to give an example of what is at stake here. Okay. Yes. So we've kind of seen like, you know, this kind of, this kind of reward does propel innovation

and research, right? Yes. But there's this with the Plant Act of 1930 that allowed people to genetically modify plants. Luther Burbank. Yeah. And then get patents for those. There's a company called Monsanto. And Monsanto came up with this idea called genetic use restriction technology. It's also known as terminator technology, where they have figured out how to insert a gene, basically a suicide gene, into its seeds. It's genetically modified seeds, right? For second gen seeds. Yes. So for the first generation seed, your plant will just grow like normal, like a normal genetically modified organism, right? Yeah. It will produce seeds. Yeah. But those seeds it produces are sterile because it has a gene in it that won't allow it

to produce seeds that can be used again. This means that you have to go to Monsanto to buy their seeds. You can't hoard their seeds and replant next year. Every year you have to go and buy their seeds. Right. This is fine and dandy for very wealthy farmers in the West. But no matter where you are in the world, if you want to grow this, you know, cricket resistant type of wheat that Monsanto owns a patent on, you got to buy it from Monsanto and you have to buy it every year, no matter what you can afford or can't. And basically there's a really good argument that you should not be allowed to own a patent or license on a process as natural as a plant producing offspring, producing seeds. Right. So that's one example that a lot of people point to

is like a cautionary tale for against gene patents. They did not, Monsanto did not, they still hold this. They didn't release it and say this is what we're doing. No, they actually vowed to not do that. Yeah. They said we won't do it, but you got to sign this agreement if you do business with us or we'll start releasing this. Right. And the agreement says that you won't reuse seeds that you get from their genetically modified plants. And didn't they buy up the company that was originally Delta and Pine Land company? They ended up buying them up, didn't they? Yes. And they, this company has said, has vowed the opposite that they're going to start using that terminator gene commercially. Oh, they have. Yeah. So a lot of people are

very nervous about whether or not that genetic use restriction technology will come into play. But I mean, it's already effectively in play. We should do a Monsanto podcast. That would be explosive. It would be very explosive. Yeah, we will. So that's gene patents. This is a, we haven't done one of these in a while. I'm quite sure we're going to hear from people on both sides of this issue and we want to. Yeah. I think we did a good job this time of keeping our own dirty laundry out of it. Yes, we did. Kudos to you, buddy. And you. So if you, we have a bunch of stuff on genes and gene patents on howstuffworks.com, just type in gene patents. It'll bring up a lot of stuff, including a quiz, which you could say is maybe a compendium

to this episode. Who wrote this one? Michael Franco? Really? I don't recognize the name. Yeah. He does everything. He does. But yeah, it was a pretty good article. Just type in gene patents at thesearchbar at howstuffworks.com. Also, don't forget, check out the corporation. It's just a really interesting documentary. And I said search bar in there somewhere, so that means it's time for listener mail. And this is the winning listener mail. Is it? It's the first one. Really? Yeah. I hope you chose wisely. John Hodgman promised a book to. Yeah. The author of this email will receive a free copy, hardcover copy of John Hodgman's incredible book about the end of the world, the third in his trilogy of knowledge, world

knowledge, called that is all, which just came out on November 1. Hot off the process. And you really should buy it. Yeah. Except for this person. John's a buddy and stuff, but it's a very, very fun book. Yeah, it is. All right. I kind of forgot that when I picked this, but I think this Turkish listener is, he deserves it. So yeah, we'll go with him. The Lucky Turk. The Lucky Turk. I had guys listening to you from Turkey. I guess I gave that away. I really love the podcast. Thanks a lot for what you're doing. This might sound a bit like complaining though. No, wait, wait, wait. I prefer that I don't come across as complaining. And I don't know if you even have any more listeners from Turkey, but in various episodes,

every time you mentioned Turkey, like when somebody was stuck in Turkey on the last episode where you were wondering if people can surf on the Bosphorus. Bosphorus. Bosphorus. It always kind of sounds like you look down on Turkey a bit, to be honest. It's untrue. Now, we talked about being stuck in Turkey and how awful that would be. That's, I don't recall that because I would love to go to Turkey sometime. I have a friend who played bass in the second most popular Turkish rock band in the late 90s. Really? Yeah, I don't remember the name of it, but Pepsi did a poll of Turks and my friend's band came in second and most popular. Was your friend Turkish? No, he went to Turkey just for the heck of it and ended up in the number two most popular rock band

in Turkey. That's probably not hard to do. See, that's what this guy's talking about right there. Yes, I know, I know. That's you, Chuck. I'm getting wrapped up in your problems. All right, sorry to drag you down. You guys seem to be a couple of people who would like to know the facts, so I just wanted to suggest you check out things like Olu Deniz Turkey or maybe Fethayet Turkey or Bodrum Turkey in Google Images. I'm just saying, I don't think anyone would mind being stuck in Turkey, really, if you really know what Turkey was like. And I did look these places up. Are they amazing? Oh, dude. Gorgeous. Turkey also arguably has the world's first city. I can't remember what it's called, but it's old. Just because I felt like I have to say this since

I'm already writing an email, there is no surfing on the Bosporus, not even swimming on the Bosporus. It's kind of dangerous. Usually it's just bigger ships crossing country that use that and there are no beaches there. But Turkey is surrounded on three sides by the sea, basically a peninsula. So there's windsurfing every kind of watersport you can think of on the seaside cities. In the media, Turkey comes across as if it was a dusty, hot and primitive country, which I think is what I had been saying. And I should say, when I worked for my last company, which was a chicken software company, one of our clients was in Turkey, and some of our guys would go over there to the chicken farms. It was awful, dude. They would come back saying, please,

God, don't ever send me to Turkey again. Because they were in like the awful part of Turkey. They were raising chickens in Turkey? Yeah, yeah. I have to say that, though, only some small cities on the eastern edges are like that, guys. The people in different clothes are more interesting than people to look at who look like most of us who look like every other European country. So the media only reflects the different part, kind of like only showing rednecks grilling steak on a shopping cart, which I've never seen. Is that a new thing? I guess so. I would like to see that. The rest of Turkey is pretty much like California. Great climate, people, social and cultural, culturally even, especially Istanbul. It resembles a very crowded San Francisco.

Not Constantinople. What, with all the hills and the bridges and the hipsters? So that is from Gozde, G-O-Z-D-E. And dude, you're getting a book, and I am sorry for bad-mouthing Turkey, because I did look at pictures, and it's nothing at all like I thought. I'm not sorry for bad-mouthing Turkey, because I didn't. I didn't. And if I did, I was totally joking. Then I feel like I owe this guy a book. Yeah, the only place in the world I would never go is Detroit. I totally go to Turkey. Detroit's awesome. So what's the name? Gozde, you get a book, so you're gonna have to write back in. Yeah, we need your mailing address, Gozde. And we should probably make them pay the difference for international shipping.

Well, and it's Turkey. It probably just says, Gozde, Turkey. That's the name. Yes, because you're selling them. They even have addresses there. We'll just put a bunch of stamps on it and throw it in the water. Exactly. Gozde, send us an email with your mailing address, because we really think there probably are more than one of you in Turkey. And to all the rest of you who send in emails, thank you. We'll try to read them, but you get notebooks. If you want to get in touch with us, you can on Twitter, syskpodcast, on Facebook, facebook.com slash stuff you should know, and via email at stuffpodcast at howstuffworks.com. Be sure to check out our new video podcast, Stuff from the Future. Join How Stuff Works staff as

we explore them as promising and perplexing possibilities of tomorrow. Brought to you by the Reinvented 2012 Camry. It's ready. Are you? The war on drugs is the excuse our government uses to get away with absolutely insane stuff. Stuff that'll piss you off. The cops. Are they just like looting? Are they just like pillaging? They just have way better names for what they call like what we would call a jack move or being robbed. They call civil answer for it. Be sure to listen to the war on drugs on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hola que tal mi gente. It's Chiquis from Chiquis and Chill Podcast. Welcome to the show. I talk about anything and everything.

I did have a miscarriage when I was 19 years old. And that's why I'm a firm believer and an advocate of therapy and counseling. The person that you saw on stage, the person that you saw in interviews, that was my mother, offstage. Apobanyame every Monday on my podcast, Chiquis and Chill, available on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.