Re: Review of Rifkin book
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Review of Rifkin book
- From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:48:54 +0200 (MET DST)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Content-MD5: /xVTttgO+Xy4Iec3h+Q5EQ==
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"b7_Ob.A.9HD.QDVh1"@data.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
[concerning the extraction of useful DNA sequences in Third World countries],
Rick Roush wrote :
>Rifkin doesn't explain who will pay to turn these sequences into drugs, test
>and market them if no one is allowed ownership rights.
Do you know the example of the Curie (two Nobel prizes)?
They discovered the use of radiology for medecine.
They knew the implications of what they had found.
Yet, they considered that it was better belonging to everybody.
More precisely, that it would be MUCH MORE USED, if shared.
So they refused to patent their discovery.
And it was MUCH MORE USED than if it had been patented !!!
I claim that "if you give the possibility to patent, then firms will do more
research, then more discoveries" is partially false. Why research should
be done only by firms ?
You already integrate that governements must be as small as large
companies want them. Only firms would be able to cope with big problems.
As surprising as it may be, the governements in all the world get less and less
Who replace them ?
large firms and mafias (what about links ?)
To summarize :
1) your reasonnement is contradicted by at least one major example in history
2) the assumption that gvt must decrease and let firms is even more dangerous.
>be allowed to control this process [choosing the sexual partner] with
I guess it is a joke ? (go and see the film "Welcome to Gataca")
Moreover, you take back the false argument that gentech would be
like the selection
by mankind since neolithic or the choice of a man by a woman. Are you serious ?
I thought you were quite rigorous with the others, and I regard this as a
But you seem to be rigorous only with the others.
Not very fair.
Sorry, but I do not regard you as a reference any more.
The reference of the article (science et Vie sept. 95) I quoted in a recent post
(5) G.J.H. Van Rooijen and M.M. Moloney, 1995, Bio/tech. 13, 72-77.
It proves that eating GMO modifies our metabolism, while you wrote me :
"So far as I can tell, the risks are zero,".
So, the risks would be zero, while eating GMO changes us in not always
predicted manners ?