Difference between revisions of "Team:Bordeaux/Practices"
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
<p align="justify"> On another hand, our project intends to use a polysaccharide which is synthetically produced by our genetically modified organisms but it already exists in nature. This molecule is naturally present in yeast’s wall, and doesn’t have a bad known impact on the environment. Compared to copper sulfate which is a toxic compound this molecule seems to be more eco-friendly. Indeed, this metal isn’t biodegradable; used many times to treat Downy Mildew, it is accumulated on the soil and the vineyards are polluted. For worms and micro-organisms living in vineyards soils, this compound is toxic, so it alters the biosphere. The hydric and air erosion contribute to the diffusion of copper in the transfer of pollution. </p> | <p align="justify"> On another hand, our project intends to use a polysaccharide which is synthetically produced by our genetically modified organisms but it already exists in nature. This molecule is naturally present in yeast’s wall, and doesn’t have a bad known impact on the environment. Compared to copper sulfate which is a toxic compound this molecule seems to be more eco-friendly. Indeed, this metal isn’t biodegradable; used many times to treat Downy Mildew, it is accumulated on the soil and the vineyards are polluted. For worms and micro-organisms living in vineyards soils, this compound is toxic, so it alters the biosphere. The hydric and air erosion contribute to the diffusion of copper in the transfer of pollution. </p> | ||
+ | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 159: | Line 160: | ||
<h5 align="center" >How is the intellectual property defined in synthetic biology?</h5> | <h5 align="center" >How is the intellectual property defined in synthetic biology?</h5> | ||
− | <p align="justify>In sciences, the question of intellectual property is recurrent. Concerning synthetic biology, all of the objects used can be patented. Among these are genes, plasmids, biobricks, genetic circuit broads, software modeling of mechanisms etc. Thinking about patentability of live being is very important in synthesis biology because we use living organisms. Apposing a patent allows appropriating a technical invention, as a produce or a process. This statute permits to protect the invention, it’s also called the “invention patent”. To elude an amalgam between creation and scientific discovery, we’ll try to define the difference between these two values. | + | <p align="justify">In sciences, the question of intellectual property is recurrent. Concerning synthetic biology, all of the objects used can be patented. Among these are genes, plasmids, biobricks, genetic circuit broads, software modeling of mechanisms etc. Thinking about patentability of live being is very important in synthesis biology because we use living organisms. Apposing a patent allows appropriating a technical invention, as a produce or a process. This statute permits to protect the invention, it’s also called the “invention patent”. To elude an amalgam between creation and scientific discovery, we’ll try to define the difference between these two values. |
<br> | <br> | ||
We can define a discovery as a revelation of what was previously unknown, but already being. Indeed, the scientific discovery is supported by study publications which are in free access for who wants it. So, we can consider it is a part of the common knowledge, ownerless. However, the creation is a process or a product which brings a solution for a particular problem. So it is a new element, previously a lacking element. An invention is supported by a patent. In our case, in synthetic biology, it can be a whole organism, a gene or a DNA sequence. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) try to delimitate those processes, it makes impossible to take ownership of organisms already being, with informations which are just revealed and makes sure that a discovery won’t become an invention. Also, the patentability of an element won’t be possible when it was extracted of its natural environment to live in a synthetic environment, or an element which was reproduced in a synthetic environment, but already naturally being. | We can define a discovery as a revelation of what was previously unknown, but already being. Indeed, the scientific discovery is supported by study publications which are in free access for who wants it. So, we can consider it is a part of the common knowledge, ownerless. However, the creation is a process or a product which brings a solution for a particular problem. So it is a new element, previously a lacking element. An invention is supported by a patent. In our case, in synthetic biology, it can be a whole organism, a gene or a DNA sequence. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) try to delimitate those processes, it makes impossible to take ownership of organisms already being, with informations which are just revealed and makes sure that a discovery won’t become an invention. Also, the patentability of an element won’t be possible when it was extracted of its natural environment to live in a synthetic environment, or an element which was reproduced in a synthetic environment, but already naturally being. | ||
Line 165: | Line 166: | ||
Here, it is a polemical subject because in synthetic biology, we are making “organic inventions”. So, there is a question: “Is it acceptable to be a living being’s owner?” “What about an interior component of it?” In this last case, whose belong the interest element? At the individue? Or at that one who modified it?</p> | Here, it is a polemical subject because in synthetic biology, we are making “organic inventions”. So, there is a question: “Is it acceptable to be a living being’s owner?” “What about an interior component of it?” In this last case, whose belong the interest element? At the individue? Or at that one who modified it?</p> | ||
− | + | </div> | |
+ | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 22:07, 31 July 2015