I was showing sarcasm. Patenting a molecule is a ridiculous idea, but you insist that it's about the process of making it. I'm pointing out that the result is not about the process, but about the molecule.
If a group of people synthesize and test many synthetic DNA sequences and then patent the useful ones, that seems fine to me. You might even call them "synthetic biologists". They have invented new things, which are not found in nature, by the process of their own skills, knowledge, and labor, and which are useful to other people. It seems perfectly reasonable that those inventions should be protected by the patent system.
I find the concept of patenting new biological entities rather scary and dangerous. They should not be patentable. Patent system is easily abused for many things unrelated to encouraging innovation. Therefore there is nothing reasonable in allowing these patents just because it takes time and effort to come up with synthesis method.
Unjustified fear is not a rational basis for policy.
It's not the synthesis method that is at stake here, it is the engineered biological system itself (system referring to a gene, regulatory sequence, genetic pathway, or organism). The kind of innovation involved in this kind of engineering is precisely what the patent system is designed to protect, so that it can be monetized while also disseminated. Without patents these innovations will remain trade secrets and hold back the progress of synthetic biology. Without patents private companies may not be able to justify investment required for innovation. Without patents inability to monetize inventions reduces the overall economic impact (return on investment) for public financing of life sciences, which in turn removes a powerful incentive for government financing of research.
For instance, a company finds a compound that fights cancer. The company invents a way to synthesize or purify this compound and sell it. The patent protects the inventor and allows them to recoup the investment. This is widely accepted. Now consider that company engineers an organism that can produce the compound in large bio-reactors. The modified organism - and in particular the engineered DNA sequences - are completely analogous to the chemical manufacturing process, and should be similarly protected.
Moreover, consider that the second process may remove a need to use the organic carbon precursors necessary for chemical synthesis (fossil fuels), or eliminates a toxic by-product of chemical synthesis, or is much cheaper and therefore reduces the cost of the compound, benefiting the public. These are real world consequences of synthetic biology protected by the patent system. They don't seem so scary to me.
In general I find the patentability of medicines a very abused practice. Pharma industry is one of the most corrupted, and especially when it comes to patents. So your example serves do disprove your point.
At least I have provided clear arguments. You have continued to make assertions (such as pharma being corrupted with respect to patents) without any kind of proof or even a clear argument as to why this is the case. I suggest you consider not taking any drug developed under or protected by US patent law in protest.
Well, many don't just consider - but simply can't take them. Because of the price, controlled by those who acquired the patent. When life saving medicine becomes a business for the sake of money - that's already bad.
