designer genetics

the hoopla surrounding stem-cell breakthroughs w/o embryos got me to thinking about genetics. (as for the ‘breakthrough’, i didnt really bother reading up on it but it sounds like a coup for people against embryonic stem-cell research; though the fact remains you could tout 'breakthroughs’ in any technology to exploit a perceived 'advantage’ over another, ie. VHS or beta.)

 anyway, there was a lawsuit involving genetically engineered soybeans from Con-Agra(sexxy, huh). a farmers crop was composed of about ¾ normal soybeans, and ¼ conagra (i think) soybeans. the designer soybean plants rewuired a liscense to grow. the farmer never planted the conagra beans, never stole them or anything. as nature intends, it was a wind that brought cross-pollination and a lawsuit from conagra.  he lost and had to pay them money for the birds and the bees.

by analogy, think about stem-cell research leading to genetically modified sperm and ovum. say one partner can take a pill to insulate that pesky genetic medical condition (ie diabetes) from developing in the embryo during fertilization. sounds great, right? you and your partner could have a healthy baby without the specter of some disease or predisposition to one. how about when that child grows up and wants to have a kid?

so you paid for your treatment from Con-Agra/Merck medical, but they have a certain lease on your genetic material’s liscensing. can they charge your child for some trickledown lisckensing fee? the treatment might be paid for and there might not be a 'copyright’ of sorts on your DNA, but not necessarily because the treatment played a significant factor in conception, just as did both partners.

i like the idea of label saying '100% certified Abbott Laboratories genetic materials.'  its a nice sick corporate logo we can sport when sharing dna.