[plug] [link] [OT] Open Source genetics

[James Devenish]

In message <OF562B5015.C110BB8C-ON48256DF0.001CD19D at int.csc.com.au>
on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:26:57PM +0800, tcleary2 at csc.com.au wrote:
> Milstein et al. ( you mentioned PCR ) as well as other Genticists had to 
> come up with their tools "by hand".

True, though I don't imagine too many teenagers with PC3 facilities in
their bedrooms, despite repeated requests from their mothers ;-) You
have to be surprisingly well-resourced in order to be a hobbyist,
despite appearances to the contrary. The hobbyist can come up with the
idea, build prototypes, and write history as has so often happened in
the past. But to fully express these inventions for public benefit
surely requires something more.

> The reason people don't do it that way is that the process scales up, 
> freeing you to do more productive work than generate restriction enzymes
[...]
> buy your standard reagents from a supplier.

Sure. But how many hobbyists have their own IC fabrication facilities,
hard-drive manufacturing facilities, vacuum tube or LCD construction
facilities, etc.? Someone's inventing and mass-producing these tools and
it's usually large corporations. When we imagine that the proprietary
manufacturing and product information is free for all, who would be able
to take advantage of that? Other large corporations, consortia, wealthy
governments and well-funded entrepreneurs. So the use of free software
relies on the use of hardware that is largely produced by people with
something to hide. And to run a computer...you need relatively clean
power, reasonable ambient climate, protection from liquids and excessive
dust, etc. So until physical resources can actually be delivered to
every person that should have them, we might at times be better off
letting the proprietary interests have their way (within reason).

PS. Nice to see you found a way to post :-)