Not so fast on those gene patents

The United States National Human Genome Research Institute is officially on paper with new research findings saying that the idea of "one gene = one protein," or "one gene = one hereditary change," is now dead.

I have followed basic developments in this area for some time.

This has a number of serious implications. First, as the story linked below notes, it further calls into question the idea of biotech patents, since one gene may interact with a second gene for one new protein formation, then interact with a third and a fourth gene for something else, and produce a third protein by itself. (Example of complex multigenic interactions: One strain of malaria is caused by as many as 500 genes working together.) How can you claim to patent an engineered gene if you are patenting only for the one-gene alone change, without even knowing how that effects the interaction with other genes on the multigenic codings?

Also, “Frankenfood” labels aside, this does give credence to people who are concerned about biotech foods, for the same reasons listed above.

It also calls into question further some of the more wild statements of Evolutionary Psychology. The lowercase version of evolutionary psychology is somewhat safer, I would say.