BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

I don't claim to know much about this subject but I think it is bad news for what was, potentially, very important work.

By Helen Briggs Health editor, BBC News website
Europe's highest court has ruled that stem cells from human embryos cannot be patented, in a case that could have major implications for medicine.
Scientists say the Court of Justice decision may impede European research into the use of stem cell therapies, or drive research abroad.
The ruling follows a challenge by Greenpeace over a patent for nerve cells from embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to turn into any tissue in the body.
They offer the hope of one day being able to treat diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke, heart disease and diabetes, if technical hurdles can be overcome.
The ruling concerned a method invented by a German professor, Oliver Bruestle, for converting human embryonic stem cells into nerve cells.
The court's decision had been seen as critical for research into the use of stem cells as treatments for a range of diseases.

Read more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15350723

[Jamie]

There's nothing to stop them doing it, other than the fact that once they've perfected it - for all intents and purposes - becomes 'open source'. This then means they'll lose out on recouping the investment and development money once it's out in the open. Money is the cause of all the problems.

[KingPhillip]

The scientists, their spokespersons, their proponents and the reporter in the article failed to convey their loss in the Court's decision.

We know research will continue. Because the cells are not patentable, other laboratories aren't bound or handicapped by said patent to pursue their research on therapeutic or diagnostic strategies, which are patentable.

We know profits may not be as great. Since when has investments in scientific research guaranteed absolutely and positively monetary dividends? Don't investments carry inherent risks of loss?

We know there aren't investments in research NOW that benefit humans because there's no profit in the ventures.

So, am I missing some tragedies that may befall the whining researchers?

[M Paul Lloyd]

I think I have to agree, that like so much reporting of science these days, something has been lost in translation.

As for loss of profits, well, I have it on good authority that Paracetamol nets more income than any other drug available and I imagine similar 'trade-offs' may well exist in other areas of medicine?

[MrIsaksson]

The scientists, their spokespersons, their proponents and the reporter in the article failed to convey their loss in the Court's decision.

We know research will continue. Because the cells are not patentable, other laboratories aren't bound or handicapped by said patent to pursue their research on therapeutic or diagnostic strategies, which are patentable.

We know profits may not be as great. Since when has investments in scientific research guaranteed absolutely and positively monetary dividends? Don't investments carry inherent risks of loss?

We know there aren't investments in research NOW that benefit humans because there's no profit in the ventures.

So, am I missing some tragedies that may befall the whining researchers?

I assume that to get the stem cells working in the way you want them to, you will have to modify them. So if you cant patent the modified stemcells that is one avenue that has now been closed from a commercial perspective.

Or am I missing something

As for loss of profits, well, I have it on good authority that Paracetamol nets more income than any other drug available and I imagine similar 'trade-offs' may well exist in other areas of medicine?

I dont see how the paracetamol example is relevant. A refinement of a drug that has been used in over a 100 years so no research cost. I also suspect it is extremely simply and inexpensive to manufacture, and hence probably is purely down to large scale manufacturing and brand. Stick a well known brand and you can add another pound to the price so a nice extra profit. The price will still only be a few pounds.

That is nothing like it will ever be to treat someone with stem cells....

[MrIsaksson]

Ignore me please

Read the bbc article and now i get it ... I completely agree with previous posts... i dont get what the issue is now

Sorry

[M Paul Lloyd]

I think the 'issue' here MrIsaksson, such as it is and with the best will in the world, can possibly be defined as 'stem cells should yield no profit' although given that the payments made to donors will be increased is rather at odds with this but then again this is possibly a bit fairer than some investor skimming off a fat percentage from something that could have such wide ranging medical benefits where such profiteering may be considered rather unethical?

As for the Paracetamol 'comparison' I accept that it is probably not entirely relevant but I merely wished to show how a process will, over longer time periods, become highly profitable rather than being subject to the current accountants rule of 'returning maximum profit over cost within ten years'................ which I have to say is partly to blame for the sorry state the world finances are currently in.

As I said "I don't claim to know much about this subject" but I'm happy to discuss it.

So, please carry on.