It’s been a busy couple of days in biotech. Between the healthcare debate and the release of Food Inc. last week, we have a lot to pull from for today’s roundup…

WHAT DO FOOD INC AND MONSANTO HAVE IN COMMON? – That question was posed by none other than…Monsanto? I am always impressed by Monsanto’s online engagement. They’re open and not afraid to take on tough issues. So, when the movie, Food Inc premiered (which is very critical of the company), I was curious to see how they’d respond…well, they didn’t disappoint. They pointed out a rather glaring hypocrisy on the part of the filmmakers:

The movie, according to its promotional Web site, “lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that’s been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment.”

I like conspiracy flicks, so judging by the above description, I might like this one too.  If I choose to see it, I’ll purchase a ticket at the movie theater or maybe wait to order it on Netflix.  I won’t download a bootlegged copy from an Internet file-sharing program or order a black-market copy on eBay – that would be stealing.  How do I know?  Because movie disclaimers tell me so:

THIS MOTION PICTURE IS PROTECTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES.  UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION, DISTRIBUTION OR EXHIBITION MAY RESULT IN CIVIL LIABILITY AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

The above warning appears at the end of the credits for Food, Inc., according to the movie’s Web site.  The disclaimer serves to remind viewers that the people involved in the production of the film invested a great deal of time, effort and money into the production of the film–and that the resulting product is their intellectual property.

Ironically, the defense of intellectual property is the bone that Kenner has to pick with Monsanto in Food, Inc…[MORE]

CAN BIOTECH HELP THE POOR? – Also on the Ag front this week, Science Progress posed this question: “What should progressives think about the prospects for using biotechnology to improve the lot and prospects of poor farmers in the developing world?” Though the author didn’t unequivocally support biotechnology – and there were more than a few points we’d disagree with in his argument – he thoughtfully and thoroughly laid out the views of both sides of the debate. And his conclusion provides hope for a rational discussion about the benefits of agricultural biotech.

It is, in fact, past time for progressives to discard simplistic thinking on agriculture in general, as if were a domain of quaint rusticity and guileless rubes. No blanket endorsement or condemnation of biotechnology makes any sense at all. Each proposal will have to be evaluated case by case. But doing that will require a discourse that is capable of following an argument of some sophistication and complexity. And that, in turn, will require a bit more literacy in the methods, purposes, and history of agriculture and agricultural science.

Biotechnology can help the poor, but whether it will depends on people of good will taking the time to understand and consider the arguments in some detail.

PATENTS PROMOTE INNOVATION – In response to the ongoing debate over patents on Capitol Hill, BIO CEO Jim Greenwood wrote this op-ed in USA Today, which did a great job of explaining the issue in layman’s terms. It’s a good one to forward to friends and family who aren’t familiar with the debate:

can a gene be patented? The easy answer is this: Genes as they exist in nature cannot be patented. No one can patent a naturally occurring gene or protein as it exists in the body.

Here’s where it becomes more complicated: Researchers can isolate a protein or DNA sequence that can help treat or potentially cure a disease, like cancer or heart disease, and they can patent this discovery. Many, if not most, human diseases have their roots in our genes. More than 4,000 diseases are suspected to stem from mutated genes inherited from one or both of our parents.

Armed with this knowledge, scientists have developed more than 200 innovative new therapies and vaccines that have helped extend and improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of patients. Researchers, for example, located the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis, then used that knowledge to create therapies that have extended the average lifespan of a person who has CF from 12 years to more than 40.

Like all other patents, gene-based patents protect the intellectual property of a scientist, researcher or biotech company, spurring investment in research and development…[MORE]