Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Taran Rampersad <cnd@knowprose.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:48:14 -0500

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>>>>>>"Michael" == Michael R Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>    Michael> Doesn't that make open peer-review *more* important for
>    Michael> pharmaceuticals?
>
>Not particularly.  According to Steve McConnell, "open" (ie, "I'll
>look at it if and when I feel like it") peer review can't hold a
>candle to review by a team of expert professionals.  This is going to
>hold even more true for medical experiments.  Making it open (ie,
>requiring publication of the patent application as well as the patent
>awarded) is very unlikely to save any lives.
>  
>
On the flip side, the Human Genome project has the capacity to save
lives and is fairly open (if not completely so). Doctors presently use
statistics for everything - an example being an aspirin a day reduces
the risk of heart attack. And yet, the Human Genome Project has shown
that this only works on every 1 out of 300.

We're not living in a world where statistics are as worthwhile anymore.
And in the medical community, I see potential for 'Open Medicine' in
that doctors around the world can study the latest things that have
worked - and have not. The application of this knowledge is up to the
individual doctor.

Steve McConnell has a good point as well - but that same point works
*for* Open Medicine instead of against it. Until it's legal to
impersonate a doctor, that point stays.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd@knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed
but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men."  John F.
Kennedy