Talk:Biopiracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Proposed merger 2 Oxford Dictionary: Biopiracy Defined 3 4 Misleading paragraph & POV 5 POV 6 More POV 7 Countervailing opinion 8 Proposed revision of lead paragraph 9 Balance 10 "Widely reported"... 11 POV in the deontological considerations' section 12 Vincristine 13 May we have a citation for this, please?

[edit] Proposed merger

Proposal: merge biopiracy and bioprospecting into Biopiracy and bioprospecting.

Reasons: terms refer to the same thing, simply evaluated differently; biopiracy is the most commonly recognized term, but bioprospecting also has weight in the field. Practical measure which may finally end all remains of the NPOV dispute.

Caravaca 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to see, after reading both articles, the supposed connection you are referring to here. Biopiracy and Bioprospecting both have completely different connotations. I vote for 'no'. 70.81.139.6

[edit] Oxford Dictionary: Biopiracy Defined

noun; "bioprospecting, regarded as a form of exploitation of developing countries". Problem Solved???

---

What about genetic resources taken from a country post-CBD with no traditional knowledge attached to the resource. E.g. Fungi isolated from Grevillea in Australia, taken to the US without access or benefit sharing with potential for the next antibiotic (against Bacillis anthracis (cause of anthrax) and plasmodium (malaria). Can that be classed as biopiracy? 11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)bootsie007

---

[edit]

I am noting that a lot of people who are calling this article 'POV' aren't familiar with how IP works on an international level - it's not a criticism, it's a statement and I hope it is taken as such. I would request that people actually read through the external links on this article before inserting their own POV into this discussion. Ideally, I agree with how the intellectual property laws should work - but the fact is that these laws do not, at present, work the way that all those inserting POV claims are discussing. The Enola Bean is a blaring example. Brazil's creation of drugs for HIV being disputed is another example. The facts are there, and while the term may be considered strong by many, the phrase is in use in academic papers around the world.

One person claims that this entry is allowing people to move their political agenda forward, and yet... nobody has dealt with the facts regarding actual cases. Folks, if you want to call this POV - fine - but address the facts, and know the topic, please. The way the system actually works is obviously - based on fact - not the way you think it should work. Which is sort of the whole point. :-)

I'm removing the POV notice now. Address the facts, and understand the actual cases, please. --TaranRampersad 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is POV down to the title which, I'd imagine, is not used by anyone who is not a true believer. jdb ❋ (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

One person disagrees and there's a 'dispute'? Honestly, Biopiracy is a common phrase used in the developing nations, and is one of the words by the United Nations and even WIPO with regard to unlicensed use of plants that are patented. This is a major issue for the developing nations. I would think that this article, if disputed, would be disputed in a more constructive manner and with more detail than a broad brush stroke saying, basically, 'I don't believe it'. I call for this article to be moved out of dispute until such time that those with disputes at least put more effort into their disputes. Further, if there are disputes they should be about objectivity.

Also, please clarify what a 'true believer' is.--TaranRampersad 15:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since no clarification was given, I have removed the dispute tag until such time that there is more than vague accusations of 'dispute'. Edit the article objectively if you are in a position to dispute, per the guidelines of the dispute link - and if you cannot, give more than a broad brush stroke, please. If there are issues, they cannot be addressed by the above. --TaranRampersad 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been here for months. Please see below. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading paragraph & POV

I have removed folowing:

The company may even ask for the intellectual protection of the modified variety in the original country in order to prevent both seeds from co-existing, and the natural variety from being sold under the traditional name. In the latter case, the source country loses its rights to produce or use the original variety for any further breeding.

The statement make these three claims:

• The company may ... prevent both seeds from co-existing - All IP provisions (patents, copyrights, etc) protect the the derived or new thing or whatever, not the idea or work that existed before.
• The company may ... prevent ... the natural variety from being sold under the traditional name - I guess it is supposed to mean "traditional name being protected by trademark". This is unlikely because trademarks are granted to distinguish bussiness or product and cannot be generic. See Trademark#Establishing trademark rights
• ... the country loses its rights ... for ... breeding - Again, this would be possible only when the original species would be patentable, which is (as I explain above) impossible.

For this I am removing this paragraph. --Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Alvin, this would all make sense if the world all followed the same Copyright, Patent and Trademark laws - but they do not. The point made in the paragraph you removed (which we are now discussing putting back in) is that even if something already existed naturally in another country, it can be patented in a separate country and TRIPs agreements as well as GATT can force the original country to pay to use the same thing. Thus the term biopiracy.

• You say that trademarks are not an issue, and yet trademark law is localized to a country. A trademark search is only good for the country in which the trademark search is done - that is common knowledge. This can happen, and is valid.

• And the original species is patentable by present laws - which is what the whole biopiracy issue is really about. IP laws don't work the way you are describing. Thus, I shall return the paragraph if I do not get a response from you within the next 72 hours on this... (It's a discussion, and while I have feelings about this, we're talking about objective material in the Wikipedia - so please note that I'm not fighting, just discussing).--TaranRampersad 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Original species, by definition, ARE NOT patentable. Or, if they are patented mistakenly (which does occur), they are paper thin and probably unenforceable. That's the reason the existence of "biopiracy" is somewhat debatable, and why most legal scholars entirely doubt its existence. That said, there may be backwards patent law system which would support patenting the original, but that's probably NOT the system involved in 99% of IPR disputes. A fundamental principle of a legitimate patent law system is that you cannot patent that which would prevent the farmer from doing that which he's already been doing. For example, someone tried patenting growing broccoli for cancer protection and suing broccoli producers for infringement. It was held the patent invalid[1]. Now, once you introduce something new, eg. hybrid crops, isolated and purified genes, chemicals, etc, you have patent infringement and licensing issues.
  • On trademarks. It's true that trademarks are generally localized. However, the strength of a trademark is also relative to several factors including distinctiveness. Generic marks--one that identifies the product or service in the generic sense (eg. using the word "plastic bag" as a trademark for a plastic bag)--are hardly protectable, if at all, under ANY legitimate system. Furthermore, an indication of use must be that is identifiable as a mark, not merely that it is used. If a local community understands the name of the plant to be the name of the plant, and not the commericial source of the product, it's not going to be easily protectable.
  • None of this is new. These are merely fundamental principles. If you want to cite local IPR oddities of certain source countries that permit such practices, go for it. That would probably be helpful for this article. However, by and large, your interpretation of the law is, in the most general sense, wrong. Mmmbeer 13:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

* unauthorised use of biological resources

Although I am aware that development of biological warfare, abusive animal testing, hunting endangered species and recently human cloning are illegal and thus unauthorized, the article does not look like mean these. Can anyone give an example of use that would require authorisation (propably from goverment body)?

* unauthorised use of traditional communities' knowledge on biological resources

This sounds like unauthorised use general knowledge being wrong in some sense. Many companies exploit e.g. the day-and-night cycle or that the best grocerry near our block is Tom's. So, because noone authorises use of traditional knowledge, this can not be sign of an activity and so should be deleted.

* unequal share of benefits...

Would be 50:50 share of income equal? Rubbed down to "not sharing of benefits ..."

These flaws in definition make term "biopiracy" vague. Can someone fix this? Without this, fixing rest does not have a sense.

I looks to me like this article in general being WP:POV duplicate of GMO#Controversy and Controversy paragraphs in related articles. If nobody determines the scope of "biopiracy", I would suggest merging with GMO or something alike. --Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Unauthorised use is actually a business term in this. Like using software without authorization. I do sort of agree that this could be rolled into controversies, as you point out, but it is a term used in the United Nations and people do look for this entry because they want to find out what it is.--TaranRampersad 17:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• I went ahead and "fixed" this article quite substantially. I simply commented out a number of things that were entirely inappropriate, like the software patent rant. That doesn't make this article NPOV yet. TaranRampersad was totally out of line to remove the banner. This article is in need of a great deal of help and focus. Save the anti-corporate, anti-globalization, anti-patent screeds for something else. I also went through the sources cited and they're in need of a great deal of trimming and balancing. We get it... they think biopiracy is the worst thing ever. However, do not remove the NPOV banner. It's nowhere near NPOV. Mmmbeer 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One more thing. I mentioned that this article "needs focus", but I want to be clear as to at least one point. Biopiracy may relate to genetically modified food, but that's not really the point. It deserves a mention, but this is NOT the appropriate article for that discussion. Mmmbeer 22:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's some perpective from the April 2000 issue From the Council for Responsible Genetics

"DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms"

The hunt for new genes to exploit for profit is regarded as a vast new frontier in science and industry. "Bioprospectors" are mining the rich genetic resources of the Third World for pharmaceutical compounds and other products, often using indigenous knowledge as their guide. As a result, indigenous communities could end up paying royalties for products based on plants and knowledge that they have been using for centuries.

Are patents necessary to provide incentive to scientists and business? Searching the world over

As new DNA sequences on our chromosomes are being identified, entrepreneurial scientists are applying for patents in order to claim exclusive rights to research and profits from thousands of such gene sequences. The Human Genome Organization (HUGO) is an international membership organization of individual scientists dedicated to coordinating efforts in genome research. HUGO recently released a statement in favor of the right of those who have determined the biological functions or products of the genes to patent their work. Patents are necessary, they claim, to provide financial incentive for scientists to do meaningful research. Does the research of molecular biologists give them the right to own genes? A gene bank project aims to preserve the genes of disappearing cultures.

A project associated with HUGO is the Human Genome Diversity Project. Designated by critics as the "Vampire Project," it aims to collect blood, hair and cell samples from up to 700 indigenous communities throughout the world. The stated goal is to gather genetic information from "vanishing" indigenous communities before these people disappear as a result of increasing industrialization and political repression. Many indigenous groups are outraged that researchers might patent genes without the consent of the communities of origin. All of the targeted groups agree that the goal of cultural preservation could be achieved by better methods than merely keeping their genes frozen away in a laboratory tissue museum. As Chief Leon Shenandoah of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs wrote in a letter to the National Science Foundation, "If there is a concern for our demise, then help us survive on our terms."

[edit] More POV

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and say this article is POV. To start with, just examining this bullet point:

patenting of biological resources with no respect to patentable criteria (novelty, non-obviousness or inventive step and usefulness or industrial applicability).

Is biopiracy a critique on the exploitation of markets or one of the patent law system? Patenting of isolated and purified substances has repeatedly been upheld by courts in the United States. So that's hardly "with no respect to patentable criteria."

Not to mention the scenario is entirely POV. I mean, what the heck is the point? Couldn't one construct a totally unsympathetic scenario too? Consider the alternative: local group realizes westerners have commericial interest in a plant compound used to successfully treat AIDS, and, to prevent their magic from being lost, decide to burn the plant before the compound could be isolated. Yay for biopiracy!

What is with people writing "encyclopedia" articles for their favorite political issue? Mmmbeer 04:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You're injecting your POV. Your experience is apparently only based on U.S. interpretation of laws. I strongly suggest you do more research; you won't need it for the bar but you will need it to help hammer out a better article on Biopiracy. Thus, inherently, you are injecting your own POV - so it is somehow appropriate that you keep adding 'NPOV' when you edit.

There is a world outside of the United States. Get used to it. --65.199.203.228 05:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• You'd better explain how the population with the native plant couldn't export it. The patent law doesn't protect the plant. It protects the "isolated and purified" gene, chemical, etc. If the country wanted to export the, let's say fruit, they very well could. Indeed, the local populations can continue going on doing what they had done for forever without additional costs. Of course, if they wanted the product incorporating that patented material, well, then they're no different than anyone else. Mmmbeer 11:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also, I'm willing to say that this article, as it is now, is closer to NPOV. Mmmbeer

[edit] Countervailing opinion

For a view on the other side of the biopiracy debate I have been recommended Paul Heald, "The Rhetoric of Biopiracy", 11 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. LJ 519 (2003). It's a somewhat controversial article but quite famous and is known for being one of the most pursuasive arguments "for" biopriacy. This is all second hand information as I don't know all that much about the topic myself, so take it for what its worth. I hope to try to look it up one of these days when I can find the time. -- PullUpYourSocks 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It can be downloaded here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285177#PaperDownload (warning: Firefox apparently doesn't work). Rasmus (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This link works better: here. Mmmbeer 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. The primary failing of this article is the omission of the rationale for so-called "biopiracy" -- that there are plenty of useful organisms in the world, and that those who go to the effort of finding and preparing them for large-scale use ought to benefit from doing so. A fine example is Cyclosporine, an immunosuppressant used in organ transplantation. It was originally discovered as the product of a fungus living in Norwegian dirt. Was it "biopiracy" for the manufacturers of cyclosporine to patent their invention?

The very word "biopiracy" is a non-neutral term -- it's akin to naming our article on homosexuality "gross indecency," or our agriculture article "land rape," or our democracy article "tyranny of the majority." If you Google for it, the vast majority of the results are highly-charged sites _against_ "biopiracy." (Besides contrarians like the author above, who, exactly, is _for_ "biopiracy"? It's like renaming "motherhood" to "maternal slavery" and asking if anyone's in favor of _that_.) You'll find plenty of defenders of patent protection of chemicals discovered in exotic areas, but few of them will call themselves "pirates."

As the article, both in title and content, remains highly POV, I've restored the NPOV warning. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Do please consider the use of biopiracy in the title of the above-cited SSRN article -- "Rhetoric of Biopiracy" -- which argues against sui generis protection for indigenous knowledge; I think this shows that biopiracy is pretty well established in usage, and people will look for an article with this title. When they find it, though, they should be told in the lead paragraph that the term is controversial; the article should then present both sides fairly and accurately. See the proposed revision, below. NPOV doesn't mean that a point of view you disagree with got into the article (or even its title); it means that the presentation is one-sided. (I think it is one-sided, and I've made a suggestion (below) for fixing it (at least in the lead paragraph)Bryan 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me add something a student just wrote to me: " Wikipedia's article on biopiracy was the single article I found during my research that represented the views of multinational corporations as well as indigenous peoples," such as this: "Gaining power over (indigenous) knowledege allows more people all over the world to benefit from knowledge that would otherwise be unknown". I think there's still some work to do on this article, but the need for an article with this name, notwithstanding its bias, seems clear. Bryan 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Re: JosephBarillari. While I don't like the term, and have put this article up for NPOV before, I don't think that you're right that the topic is akin to calling motherhood "maternal slavery". Well, it might be, but that's really a bad analogy anyhow. I don't think that anyone would say they were "for biopiracy". I'm not sure that there are many people that would say that they're for genocide or anything you can name that we consider genuinely reprehensible or immoral. The problem for this article, though, is that this is a term used to describe a particular behavior and it is the common term for it (unlike "maternal slavery") (Ed. I wonder if we need a redirect from maternal slavery to motherhood). In any event, there's no place else to send this article. It deals with a real topic and several countries have taken up the issue--see Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, etc[2].
  • That all said, this article has a lot of work. It's better than it was before I got my hands on it--basically an anti-globalization rant. Unless there are viable locations for the article, it should stay. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revision of lead paragraph

'Biopiracy refers to the patentingprivatization and unauthorized use of biological resources [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments) without compensatory payment. Since no consensus exists that the patenting of indigenous knowledge actually amounts to piracy, some believe this term is too biased to be used. However, it is well established in the literature. outside of a country which has pre-existing knowledge. This privatization and use is sometimes claimed to be predatory. Particular activities usually covered by the term are...

Rationale:

• Biopiracy isn't about the appropriation of resources; it's about the appropriation and privatization (by means of patents) of knowledge
• It is important to mention 'without compensatory payment' -- if payment were made, presumably, we wouldn't call it 'piracy'. Bryan 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll bite on the patenting point. I don't think that that'll work. In fact, I'm almost certain all the behaviors attempted to be captured by the "biopiracy" can described simply as patenting. In fact, it's possible that a patent on certain biological materials have no patent potential at all--especially, if we look outside US patent law. In those cases, the objection is the problem "taking" something local and then never returning. Patenting is certainly part of it, but it's not all of it.
  • On compensation, I think you're right to an extent. Those "exploitive" entities do often pay something for access; it's just that when biopiracy concerns are raised it is usually because the compensation is less than what is received for the resulting commercial product. This makes sense, of course. Leading you to gold is a cheap service, but actually mining, purifying, exporting, and retailing involves considerably more "risk" and "cost". As such, it's perhaps better phrased as "without just compensation". Of course the problem with that is you're going to start to slide down the slippery slope. In my example, what portion of the profits from the gold is due the person who leads you to the gold? What if the person didn't know what they had and figured it for iron pyrite? That's a tough argument to make.
  • Finally, biopiracy, as a concept, exists and is demonstrable. The problem is usually whether one believes that it is a "bad" thing, something to be genuinely concerned about, or if there is some inequity in the outcomes. So I'm not sure that your last significant change makes sense. In the spirit of full disclosure, I think it's a bunch of bunk, but that's not a first. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We do seem to be crossing paths today! --Thanks for these very helpful comments. What do you think of this?

'Biopiracy is a loaded term that refers to the appropriation, generally by means of patents, of [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments); such appropriations are said to be a form of piracy when indigenous peoples (or their advocates) believe that adequate compensation has not been paid.

For example, in 1995 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a pharmaceutical research firm received a patent on a technique to extract an antifungal agent from the Neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout India; Indian villagers have long understood the tree's medicinal value. Although the patent had been granted on an extraction technique, the Indian press described it as a patent on the Neem tree itself; the result was widespread public outcry, which was echoed throughout the developing world.

In part due to biopiracy's perceived resemblance to colonialism, in which Western governments were seen to extract natural resources from colonized countries without paying due compensation, it is often presented -- as the term biopiracy obviously suggests -- as a form of predation, which is practiced by richer nations upon the poorer. Although few would advocate biopiracy, defenders of the patent system point out that, in the absence of patents, pharmaceutical companies would have little incentive to develop modern medications from indigenous knowledge, which means that the medical benefits of this knowledge would be denied to millions of people worldwide. Bryan 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are all fighting, but when I added something to the articleand sourced it, that became the only numbered source on the page. Shouldn't someone be linking up all those statements withsome proof?Gabbahead 21:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

The lack of balance in the item brings disrepute to Wikipedia. Other contentious issues in the globalization debate are well and fairly represented. The range of account of the meaning of Biopiracy is narrow, the inherently political nature of concept by those who coneived it is inadequately discussed, the range of sources and links is skewed. An immediate improvement would be source Graham Dutfield on www.Sci.Dev.Net "Bioprospecting: legitimate research or 'biopiracy' " where he presents a balanced picture on the evolution of the term "Biopiracy". ao

Problem with above comment: no date or author attached. I assume the comment applies to an outdated version of the article, unless its author returns with a dated comment and states otherwise. Caravaca 08:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Widely reported"...

I'm not going to quibble about the inclusion of the example in the introductory paragraph, but I have to wonder if it's appropriate to footnote that something was widely reported but have it link to a very peculiar site. One questionable source != widely reported. Also, I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, it may have been. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. "Widely reported" means: I've read a lot on the topic and IMHO the failure to compensate the indigenous people in the Rosy Periwinkle case verges so strongly on "common knowledge" in the field that nobody (else) particular bothers to explicitly state it or supply sources any more. "Common knowledge" in my view is knowledge which no longer requires any footnotes at all. But I put one in all the same! How many more sources would you like? Caravaca 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"very peculiar site": Living Rainforest is not a peculiar site! It looks to me like a museum/information centre with real staff, a real building and a school-orientated educational mission that goes out of its way to be informed, informative, impartial and simple. In my view, it's much better than an web-only source. Could your comment have anything to do with the UK being a long way from Wisconsin?! [warning: humour] But seriously, I can add more sources. Or would you like to suggest one? Caravaca 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in the deontological considerations' section

There is no mention of the fact that if and when a patent is granted to a private organization, the specific thing being patented becomes just as much property of the applying party as land is property of a nation. This leads to POV in the following arguments section, where matters are only examined from the standpoint of a nation forbidding the use of a plant in Most Virtuous Medicine that Saves Little Children rather than ever mentioning the other, more infamous way where a patent granted to a corporation is used to strip indigenous peoples of the natural right to make use of, and further refine, their traditional knowledge.

Certainly this sounds alarmist. I'd de-POV the section myself if it weren't for the lack of concrete reference, rather than memories of news articles from yesteryear, with which I'm afflicted. One must consider however that patents in the US are typically laid out like an onion, with very very general claims at the top and the real meat at the bottom. Though an apologist might make the argument that only the specific claims are enforced, this viewpoint acquires a degree of failure and suck on contact with the real world. Indeed, the wider patent claims present in a patent for a specific method of data compression have been successfully used against (out of court, I'd imagine, patent litigation being ridiculously expensive for no gain for the defendant) parties that were putting out-of-patent or prior art covered techniques to use, even and particularly when these techniques had little (if anything outside the rough field of application) to do with the patent's specific claims, or even its title! It is not hard to imagine, and I would be surprised if evidence of this were difficult to find, a situation where an indigenous people are suddenly forbidden from growing, say, traditional varieties of rice due to their government's deference to the US patent regime, even though according to the apologists of "bioprospecting" the relevant patent only covered a few molecules in some obscure industrialized situation.

In closing, would someone with proper Wikipedia princess mojo mind sticking a NPOV tag at the top of that section? Again, I'd do it myself but being just an anonymous shithead I think I'll pass this time. The article was written by someone, and that someone may easily prevail over Andy N. Onymous in a dispute. 88.112.2.159 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what your point is. I'm not going to disagree that the section needs work, but I'm not entirely clear what you think needs to be done. I will point out one thing, though: patents are territorial. There are only some narrow circumstances in which a foreign patent may be enforced (importation of a patented product, export of components for use in a patented process abroad). Furthermore, countries don't really defer "to the US patent regime", but they may find offering US patent owners the same protection in their country appropriate. Even in that case, patents don't stop a farmer from doing what they've always done. Even in cases like Monsanto's Technology Use Policy to prevent saving of seeds and prohibitting resale of their patented seeds, that's enforced by contract.

Finally, rants about the patent system are really rants about the patent system. I'm not sure how talking about litigation costs, prior art searches, and data compression are really that relevant to ownership rights. The point of the biopiracy article should be to describe biopiracy and the mechanisms by which it operates. Biologic resources are not really that different than anything else. The problem people have is not that indigineous peoples lose their ability to use the natural resource (often NOT the case), but rather that they lose out on the ability to exploit that resource for profit or share in the commercialization. In fact, there's some really irony in the idea of indigenous knowledge I.P. proposals which would create yet another type of I.P. and perhaps lead to yet different types of biopiracy. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincristine

I've changed some of the text about vincristine since strictly speaking it wasn't accurate. Vincristine is used in chemotherapy for several types of cancer, none of which is specifically a "children's cancer". Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia often does affect children, but also adults over the age of 50. Hodgkin lymphoma mostly affects young adults and people over 60; non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence increases with age. It's also not correct to speak of vincristine as a "cure". Firstly, it's used only as one component of a therapy regime, not on its own, and secondly, while the long-term survival rates can be good, "cure" is far too strong a term to be used unqualifiedly. Kay Dekker 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May we have a citation for this, please?

U.S. courts have upheld patents on biological substances like adrenaline and even basic elements.

OK, I'm not a patent lawyer, but that surprises me. There's certainly no mention of this on the Chemical element page. I'd really like to see a citation for a US court upholding a patent on an element. Kay Dekker 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)