[extropy-chat] Re: Monsanto's genetically-modified revival

[Peter Breyer]

Alfio Puglisi:
> Interesting. Makes me wonder what a GM Open-Source movement would be
> like. On the face of it, it would seem a non-starter, but i wonder...

Sure, the entry-level requirements for serious bio research are higher than
for programming a P2P client, but still, such an open-source biology already
exists. Look here:

http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/563.html

"BiOS (Biological Open Source) Licenses draw inspiration from the open
source software movement but are adapted for patented technologies. They
create a "protected commons" in which an invention can be improved by the
ideas of many, without exclusive capture by any one entity. CAMBIA has
seeded this movement with its own technologies (see below), and other
technology owners may also provide licenses to their technologies using this
framework."

...and a Wired article on BIOS:


Open-Source Biology Evolves 
By David Cohn

Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66289,00.html

02:00 AM Jan. 17, 2005 PT

To push research forward, scientists need to draw from the best data and
innovations in their field. Much of the work, however, is patented, leaving
many academic and nonprofit researchers hamstrung. But an Australian
organization advocating an open-source approach to biology hopes to free up
biological data without violating intellectual property rights.

The battle lies between biotech companies like multinational Monsanto, who
can grant or deny the legal use of biological information, and independent
organizations like The Biological Innovation for Open Society, or BIOS, and
Science Commons. The indies want to give scientists free access to the
latest methods in biotechnology through the web.

BIOS will soon launch an open-source platform that promises to free up
rights to patented DNA sequences and the methods needed to manipulate
biological material. Users must only follow BIOS' "rules of engagement,"
which are similar to those used by the open-source software community.

"There are technologies you need to innovate and then there are the
innovations themselves," said Richard Jefferson, founder and director of
BIOS in Canberra, Australia. "But those can only happen when there is fair
access to the technologies."

Just like open-source software, open-source biology users own the patents to
their creations, but cannot hinder others from using the original shared
information to develop similar products. Any improvements of the shared
methods of BIOS, the Science Commons or other open-source communities must
be made public, as well as any health hazards that are discovered.

BIOS has called on Brian Behlendorf, CTO of ColabNet, to create the web
tools the open-source community platform will run on. Those should be up in
the coming weeks.

Nipping at its heels is the Science Commons. The outgrowth project of
Creative Commons will have a hand in all areas of science, not just the life
sciences like BIOS, and is getting ready to launch its open-source community
in the next two to three weeks, said John Wilbanks, executive director of
Science Commons.

Wilbanks sees Science Commons and other open-source communities as a
"neutral ground" for people to decide how much control over a patent they
want to maintain or control. "Say you are a holder of patents and you want
to make them available, you should be able to do that without having to call
a lawyer," said Wilbanks.

While free access to biological information will benefit those doing
research, companies who have invested millions in patents, on the other
hand, won't perform expensive groundbreaking research without a guarantee
that their intellectual property rights would be upheld. "Patents attract
investors, providing the resources necessary to bring the product to
market," said Brigid Quinn, deputy director of public affairs with the U.S.
patent office. "Patents are and have always been an important part of this
country's economic fabric."

On the contrary, Jefferson believes patent restrictions have compromised
billions of people who should be benefiting from new diagnostic tests or
improved genetically modified crops and medicines.

For example, biologists in Kenya might be eager to create a genetically
modified sweet potato that could allow farmers to use fewer chemical
fertilizers. But if a company owns all or part of the gene sequence, DNA
fragment or the mechanism in question, the scientists' hands are tied unless
they can pay a licensing fee. The corporations that own such patents won't
invest in research unless they know a market is waiting for the product.

"Perhaps professors in Kenya can start a company, perhaps they can make
$300,000 a year, but that's just not on the charts for Monsanto," said Roger
Brent of Berkeley's Molecular Sciences Institute.

Under an open-source contract between scientists, just like open-source
software, developers would be free to use these methods to create new
products. The products themselves would be proprietary, but the techniques
and components used to make them would be open to all, meaning more
bio-products, competition, smaller markets and faster improvements,
Jefferson said.

If Jefferson and his fellow rebel scientists succeed, biotech companies
stand to lose their monopoly on creating integrated biological systems. But
he believes human health, safety and standards of living will all suffer
under the present patent structure.

Some fear that making the latest methods of genetic modification public will
provide terrorists with the know-how to concoct new bioweapons in the
comfort of their own garage. "Biological knowledge can be used for good or
ill and unfortunately it's easier to make a biological weapon than it is
defenses," said David Seagrest, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies who focuses on biology and terrorism. With free
instructions on how to cook up new, improved toxins, open-source biology
could pose a threat to homeland security.

Jefferson, however, distinguishes between having access to biotech
components and the legal license to use them. The techniques for biohacking
are already public -- they can be found in IP contracts -- it's just not
legal to apply them. "The people who have malice are going to do it
irrespective of whether or not it's legal," said Jefferson.

Brent and Drew Endy, assistant professor of biology at MIT, who first coined
the phrase "open source biology" at Berkeley's MSI, echoed this distinction.
"Right now anybody who wants can re-synthesize the SARS virus," explained
Brent.

Brent, Endy and researcher Robert Carlson sounded a rallying cry for
open-source biology at MSI in 1999. The idea was to give researchers and
scientists free access to the information needed to invent new biotech
products that could benefit their communities and keep the world safe.

Five years later the dream of open-source software is becoming a reality.

"This is just the kernel of open-source biology," Jefferson said.

Jefferson sees open-source biology as part of science's evolution, the next
logical step for science after the open access movement, in which
organizations like the Public Library of Science made scientific journals
freely available to anyone on the internet. Previously, thousands of dollars
were charged annually for subscriptions by journals like Nature and Science.
Now people will be able to perform the same experiments found in these free
online journals and become part of the peer review and research process
themselves.

By broadening the base of people who could hack DNA, scientists like Brent,
Endy and Jefferson believe the hacker culture values like elegant design,
creativity and sharing beneficial works of engineering for all, will spread
to biology. "I think those are virtues which the existing world of science
and engineering could gain a lot from," Brent said.