Talk:Pharming (genetics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Genetics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


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 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Content on IP[edit]

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... [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] (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 Wikipedia 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 personal attack, as does your statement on what "any sound patent attorney" would do. You do realize that Praeceptor has taught, molded, and mentored hundreds of "sound patent attorn[ies]" 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)
The content is hopelessly POV. It is not even close to - does not even attempt - to be NPOV, encyclopedic content. Really. I am not at all opposed to there being content about IP in this article but if there is, it needs to reflect the maintream of legal thought on biotech patenting. Stern's views on this are possibly far enough from the mainstream that any mention of them may be UNDUE. The view in the source provided is way out there, and all that the content does is explain that view. This really is COI editing at its worst. I would not be making a stink about this, if it wasn't glaring. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You have three different editors saying that it belongs in the article, while you are the sole editor opposing its inclusion. Please stop edit warring the article to your preferred version. If their is an opposing POV, please provide sources, as Praeceptor has done, so the community can properly evaluate this. Second, this is nowhere near COI editing. You really need to drop that stick, as it is established that he is an expert in the field. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No one competent in patent law is even addressing the POV concerns. I am too angry to write more now. Will come back to this later. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, again, please focus on content, not the contributors. And again, please ease up on the personal attacks—you are very well aware that PraeceptorIP is not only competent in patent law, but is an acknowledged expert in the field. Stating that there is no one competent is not acceptable, merely because they don't agree with you. GregJackP Boomer! 05:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In all honesty, volunteering at Wikipedia should be a happy experience. You should perhaps edit in an area where you have less emotional attachment, for your own peace and for that of others who want to work on articles in the GM suite. petrarchan47คุ 04:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The title of this article is Pharming. It is about the production of biopharmaceuticals by genetically modifying a goat, pig, or something so that its body manufactures the desired pharmaceutical. It is not about oncomice (which manufacture no pharmaceuticals) or the diagnostics industry or even the GMO crops so dear to Jytdog's heart. All of Jyt's rants about those things are beside the point in a Pharming discussion.

Now, there are two 19th cent. S Ct cases--the woodpulp case and the artificial alizarine case--that hold that artificially making a known product does not lead to a patent on the product so produced. Jyt says change the product. Whether FDA will let you change the chemical composition of, say, insulin and market it, I don't know. I doubt it. But Jyt seems to think he knows. OK. But is that relevant? Maybe. Is anybody doing that? Jyt doesn't say. So maybe he is just blowing steam. Perhaps we can check the facts regarding the goat-made anticoagulent: is it the same as the human product? Is it patented? If so, is the patent valid? Does anyone here know any of that?

Next is the question whether the process of making the anticoagulent via goat can be patented. Maybe it can. Maybe it cannot. I pointed to a dictum in one case saying "maybe" (or just saying "we are not passing on that"). But the Mayo case and the Alice case say that exploiting a natural principle can be patented only if you implement the principle in an inventive way, not a conventional, known, routine way. That raises the question whether making a goat manufacture an anticoagulent by injecting appropriate genetic material into it in accordance (perhaps) with a known procedure involves the required inventive step of which Mayo speaks. I haven't seen any case that addresses, much less answers, that question.

Now, the publications Jyt cited. Are any of them about Pharming? Or are they about other things? The p.14 of the EU advertising brochure isn't about Pharming; it's about all kinds of other things (which aren't the subjet of this WP article). The woman from Amer. Univ. in IP Brief isn't addressing Pharming. Jyt wants to change the subject, perhaps. But this Talk page is about Pharming. Does anybody know of any secondary material about IP relative to Pharming? I don't think Jyt does. And he doesn't like the brief discussion about it in Eur. Intell. Prop. Rev. I would be happy to see L Rev articles on the subject of Pharming IP, so that they could be mentioned in this WP article. Can anybody here cite any?

Perhaps if Jyt stops being "too angry to write more" he'll enlighten us. Maybe not.     PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • For the convenience of everyone involved in this discussion, I am placing below the material that Jytdog is opposed to with a brief comment on why I think it is neutral and innocuous. The consensus view of interested Wikipedians is sought in order to decide whether the material should be included in the WP article on Pharming. The discussion in issue concerns whether the products and methods of biopharming can be patented under US law.

As indicated above, some mammals typically used for food production (such as goats, sheep, pigs, and cows) have been modified to produce non-food products, a practice sometimes called pharming. Use of genetically modified goats has been approved by the FDA and EMA to produce ATryn, i.e. recombinant antithrombin, an anticoagulant protein drug.[21] These products "produced by turning animals into drug-manufacturing 'machines' by genetically modifying them" are sometimes termed biopharmaceuticals.

The patentability of such biopharmaceuticals and their process of manufacture is uncertain. Probably, the biopharmaceuticals themselves so made are unpatentable, assuming that they are chemically identical to the preexisting drugs that they imitate. Several 19th century United States Supreme Court decisions hold that a previously known natural product manufactured by artificial means cannot be patented.[22] An argument can be made for the patentability of the process for manufacturing a biopharmaceutical, however, because genetically modifying animals so that they will produce the drug is dissimilar to previous methods of manufacture; moreover, one Supreme Court decision seems to hold open that possibility.[23]

On the other hand, it has been suggested that the recent Supreme Court decision in Mayo v. Prometheus[24] may create a problem in that, in accordance with the ruling in that case, "it may be said that such and such genes manufacture this protein in the same way they always did in a mammal, they produce the same product, and the genetic modification technology used is conventional, so that the steps of the process 'add nothing to the laws of nature that is not already present.' "[25] If the argument prevailed in court, the process would also be ineligible for patent protection. This issue has not yet been decided in the courts.

The first paragraph is unexceptionable, even by the standards of a rabid Monsantophile. It describes the relevant GMO procedures in a perfectly neutral manner to set the stage for the following paragraphs.
The second paragraph states, first, that the biophemceutical product itself, if unchanged from the original, is probably not patentable as a product. Note 22 cites two US Supreme Court cases that say that you cannot get a product patent on a preexisting product made in a new way. (The recent Myriad decision is to a similar effect, as to DNA. Perhaps it should be cited to as "see also.") The second paragraph then goes on to say that an argument can be made that the process (e.g., putting a gene into a goat to make its body generate ATryn, which it secretes in its milk) is patentable, citing some language in a Supreme Court case that leaves open that possibility.
The third paragraph refers to language in the recent Mayo and Alice cases that may suggest that if the process is known and conventional, lacking an "inventive step," then the process cannot be patented under US law. The paragraph concludes with a neutral statement that: "If the argument prevailed in court, the process would also be ineligible for patent protection. This issue has not yet been decided in the courts."
The presentation is NPOV. It presents both sides of whether the process can be patented and end by saying the courts have not resolved the matter yet.
I therefore believe that Jytdog is totally off-base in this matter. I would like to assume his good faith. But he constantly tries to bully those who do not embrace his wildly pro-GMO stand on all GM-related issues, including patent protection, rather than make an argument on the merits with citation to support. Whether to have this material in the Pharming article is an issue in which I wish to accept whatever is the consensus view of those Wikipedians following this issue. But Jytdog is satisfied with nothing but his own way, regardless of consensus. In any case, the above material lays out the issue (as I understand it), and I now look forward to reading the views of others concerned in this matter. Thank you for your patience. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Above Jytdog links an article and hints that there are no problems to patent, i looked at that book and they cite your case as well Thus, if something changed this should just be added, to document the entire development. prokaryotes (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As Jytdog has commented on PraeceptorIP's talk page, I don't pretend to be an expert on patent law, though Jytdog used bullying terms to disparage me on this topic, which I won't repeat here. After looking into this, it appears to me that PraeceptorIP's addition is to the point, and I am in agreement with the consensus to include. Jytdog admits to anger on this topic, so much so that he has had to walk away from editing here for a time, which is certainly honest of him, but Jytdog also threatens to take PraeceptorIP to the COI board. This is the third board he has mentioned threateningly in the past 48 hours on this suite of topics, the other boards being ANI and ArbCom. I have given Jytdog warnings, to no apparent effect. Jusdafax 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
And he filed a report about me here.prokaryotes (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. So we are up to four boards now. I think the evidence is pretty clear what's going on, and the major policy being violated is WP:TEND. Jusdafax 05:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
...along with WP:Incivility which Jytdog has already received a warning for.[1] The closer at that time decided there was no need for action.DrChrissy (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, thanks for drawing that to my attention. Jusdafax 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I strongly suggest we stop with the warring and try to talk this out. Several editors are on the verge of a block. Jusdafax 05:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)