CRISPR in the cannabis space?

  • Thread starter shades
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
shades

shades

56
8
Hey guys,

I've been reading about this tech that's the next 'big thing' in genetics. From what I'm told and have seen in a hackerspace you don't need a multi-million Dow/Bayer/etc grade laboratory to do this stuff. It's kitchen/garage-space science. Has anyone experimented with this or has any resources they could provide about the subject? Anyone that is doing it before it federally goes legal is going to have /suuuuuuuch/ a jumpstart in the comercial space once it does become federally legal. Out of places it is federally legal are there any resources available to read?
 
TripsRabbit

TripsRabbit

1,259
163
All you need is beneficial bacteria, I don't see any benefit in finding bad bacteria in cannabis, please tell us more.
 
JSH1973

JSH1973

Supporter
1,027
263
Sounds like total snake oil I think... Maybe invest a couple of millions in it and see how it goes :-)
 
TheBioMaster

TheBioMaster

450
93
Well this kinda sucks!! I don't think anyone should be able to own "plant traits" like "disease resistance".....Also notice how other countries have laws/regulations against this kinda crap, but not the US......I copied and pasted that part from the article link posted above.

What kinda business wants to own plant traits anyhow???? Is that really needed for success?? This is going on with human genes as well. Can a business own your pecker if they make it larger?? I guess so, as long as your in the US???

Copy&Paste:

CanBreed CEO Ido Margalot told technology news site CTech earlier this year that the company has “patented all the crucial traits in cannabis, like disease resistance.”

Gene-edited crops face strict “novel-foods” limitations in the European Union. But in the United States, gene-editing tools like CRISPR do not trigger additional scrutiny under a 2018 policy adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 
Grownsince95

Grownsince95

❤🌱❤🤘😁✌
Supporter
1,854
263
Well this kinda sucks!! I don't think anyone should be able to own "plant traits" like "disease resistance".....Also notice how other countries have laws/regulations against this kinda crap, but not the US......I copied and pasted that part from the article link posted above.

What kinda business wants to own plant traits anyhow???? Is that really needed for success?? This is going on with human genes as well. Can a business own your pecker if they make it larger?? I guess so, as long as your in the US???

Copy&Paste:

CanBreed CEO Ido Margalot told technology news site CTech earlier this year that the company has “patented all the crucial traits in cannabis, like disease resistance.”

Gene-edited crops face strict “novel-foods” limitations in the European Union. But in the United States, gene-editing tools like CRISPR do not trigger additional scrutiny under a 2018 policy adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Plant patents have been around forever. There's only one Andy boy broccoli Raab. Interesting story if you have a few minutes to look it up. 👍

Breeders have a right to protect their work just like any other inventor. Whether or not someone agrees with gene editing is another subject but that has become part of breeding plants now like it or not.

🌱
 
TripsRabbit

TripsRabbit

1,259
163
If big pharma can't synthesize it and own the copyright, the people who own big pharma want the copyright to the plant genetics. They want the copyright to everything you consume, so you HAVE to buy it from them.
 
TheBioMaster

TheBioMaster

450
93
Plant patents have been around forever. There's only one Andy boy broccoli Raab. Interesting story if you have a few minutes to look it up. 👍

Breeders have a right to protect their work just like any other inventor. Whether or not someone agrees with gene editing is another subject but that has become part of breeding plants now like it or not.

🌱

Breeders having rights to their work is something different than trying to copy write a plant trait for disease resistance....Its the fact that people don't understand the difference is what makes this so dangerous...... Nothing to do with Andy's broccoli......at all.

This is about trying to treat a plant like a record album..... Or a song from that album. Obviously there is a difference between a plant trait and a record album.......yes????

GMO's is for sure a different argument......

Answer my original question......if you have your pecker enlarged from a gene edit, does the company own your pecker?? Does it have "copywrites" to your pecker??? When you masterbate, do you have to pay a fee afterwards?? A sticky subject.....no pun intended!! LOL!
 
TheBioMaster

TheBioMaster

450
93
If a breeder like Andy or anyone else for that matter decides to "breed" some broccoli strains, and then decide to sell his broccoli as "Andy's Special Broccoli", then that is called " business".......Andy can also make sure Bobby down the street doesn't try and sell HIS broccoli as "Andy's Special Broccoli".........

Now that is a far cry from trying to OWN a plant trait from a specific plant strain........

I posted an article a while back of all the companies that Monsanto's owns....like General Hydroponics and a slew of other products that people buy supporting Monsanto's.
 
Grownsince95

Grownsince95

❤🌱❤🤘😁✌
Supporter
1,854
263
Breeders having rights to their work is something different than trying to copy write a plant trait for disease resistance....Its the fact that people don't understand the difference is what makes this so dangerous...... Nothing to do with Andy's broccoli......at all.

This is about trying to treat a plant like a record album..... Or a song from that album. Obviously there is a difference between a plant trait and a record album.......yes????

GMO's is for sure a different argument......

Answer my original question......if you have your pecker enlarged from a gene edit, does the company own your pecker?? Does it have "copywrites" to your pecker??? When you masterbate, do you have to pay a fee afterwards?? A sticky subject.....no pun intended!! LOL!
If a company invents a machine or a "process" that makes your 🍆 bigger they own the machine and the process. You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.

If I figure how to breed a completely mite resistant strain that I can prove genetically is unique to my work am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone and loose all that hard work? Should that not also be intellectual property?

I don't understand your point because you only want to talk in extremes..
 
shades

shades

56
8
Not to sound like the devil's advocate here but if you like seedless grapes you can thank a GMO patent (1914? I can't remember the exact year). GMOs aren't inherently evil it's just that everyone that's really interested in them generally is evil as fuck (ie: monsanto), and ever since the rise of computing and mass data processing GMO now suddenly got wrapped into this giant mystery enigma that only seems to be nightmare fuel.

There needs to be more push for an open source genome project especially regarding GMOs and making certain genetics free to use but not free to profit from as the sole entity in the space.

It certainly will be difficult getting people to fork over thousands of dollars for a patent just so it can't be made money off of but just how open source software allows you to use certain software but not sell it we need to allow corporations to use genetically modified organisms without them being the sole proprietors to the technology. Just like in computing how there is only a limited number of different ways to display a compressed image (jpg vs gif, etc) I'm sure the same will be such of genetic modification regarding pest/mold resistance.

With only 14 states left with illegal cannabis the time to put the momentum into this before it gets federally legalized is shrinking.

Just how the U.S. Govt broke up "Ma Bell" in the 20th century, and the current discussions of breaking up "Big Tech" (Facebook, Google, Microsoft, yahoo [haha, yahoo wishes it could be in that group], etc), tomorrows discussion will be about who owns the rights to grow the food you eat and crops you smoke.

Certainly monsanto isn't going to go after you growing in your closet with with the same fervor as the FBI would as it wouldn't be profitable but it certainly does allow companies like monsanto to dust your farm's crops with their pollen and show up on your property with suits, suitcases, and paperwork demanding you pay them for their technology that you didn't ask them to spray your crops with...

I would be surprised if some farmers placed in such a situation opt to pay them with.... lead, and the feed them to their pigs.

I understand small farms need to be able to turn a profit (or else they wouldn't be farming for a career choice) and such small operations not should but NEED protection from Big Agriculture. If we dont' come up with something soon we can look foward to a future where it's legal to grow your own weed but you're not going to be able to sell your weed to your friends/neighbors/family members legally as is with tobacco today. When's the last time you smoked some home grown flue cured tobacco? Smaller farms that can't afford to pay the extortion costs of forced pollination will be forced to sell their farms to cover the legal costs if they don't opt for a negotiation that heavily favors monsanto. The behavior around GMOs is very evil but GMOs them selves are not the big scary boogey man that everyone's been led to believe.
 
shades

shades

56
8
If I figure how to breed a completely mite resistant strain that I can prove genetically is unique to my work am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone and lose all that hard work? Should that not also be intellectual property?

"Am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone and lose all that hard work?"

There's a lot to unpack here:

".../lose/ all that hard work..."

There are a couple of ways to look at this:
<Ghandi> Huzzuah the whole world is now going to benefit from all that 'hard work'!
<Buddah> Huzzuah the whole world is now going to benefit from all that 'hard work'!
<MotherTeresa> Huzzuah the whole world is now going to benefit from all that 'hard work'!
etc

v.s.

<Monsanto>"NOOOOOOOO OUR PROFITS, OUR SHAREHOLDERS, OUR WORLD DOMINATION!"
<AnyGreedyMFer> "NOOOOOOOOO my aspirations to dominate the planet and receive a royalty for ever seed planted or cutting took!"


"Am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone"

You gotta really look at yourself asking that kind of question. Are you Martin Shkreli selling your pill that used to be $13.50 yesterday for $750 today that people will actually die if they don't get or can't afford? Banking on insurance's deep pockets to get paid all the while neglecting the individuals who can't afford or have been denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions...

[hypothetical you, not 'actual' you; don't take this as a personal attack, I'm sure you're a good person]
If you think you've got any "right" to sell your mite resistant seed for $750 a seed instead of $13.50 a seed, prosecuting adjacent farms for growing 'your' crops that you've made deliberate effort to spread to their property without being asked to... I personally think you 'aught to be kicked into a wood chipper along with anyone on your will who is bequeathed that intellectual property.

If you want to try to counter that with, "It's not insulin, you're not going to die if you don't by my seed, you're just going to spend more money fighting pests" you're still making an argument from the side of the fence most people would call "evil".

If you come from the argument point of, "I've made such a significant discovery the entire planet needs to benefit from, here is that work, and no body or entity is allowed exclusive rights or privilege to produce this product the entire planet is going to benefit from. Here is my donation bin, give what you feel is appropriate or can afford to part with" You're more than likely going to get a bunch of tax-exempt money, maybe [probably] enough, to never have to farm again for the rest of your life. It's almost a guarantee to see hundreds of thousands of dollars from entities struggling to get the public to forget about their past transgressions; their negative karma turns into your positive karma.

"Should that not also be intellectual property?"
I would argue it still /should/ be intellectual property, that being said, you do realize that filing for a patent on said IP means you have to /disclose the sauce/ to the patent office which google will now put on the internet which now allows any black market/counterfeit operations to occur in nation states with no extradition treaties (.cn/.ru) with the united states. You put that mite resistant strain out there and guess what, people with more resources than you are /already/ taking 'your work' and producing it at a volume you could /only dream of doing/ with no fiscal budget to even attempt any litigation efforts should they even be possible. You're talking about entities that routinely have vans pull up to intersections to have individuals kicked into them, driven off somewhere to never be seen or heard from again.

You can't have it 'be a secret' and have it 'be patented' at the same time.
You /can't/ expect to be the sole benefiting entity from a discovery that's supposed to benefit the entire planet.

Lets also be real here, if you don't discover this mite resistant gene in your $x,xxx garage lab, someone working in monsanto/dow/bayer/etc's $xx,xxx,xxx++ laboratory /will/ discover it. It's kinda your responsibility to make this information is available to and FOR everyone before someone decides that this information is to only benefit themselves and their shareholders.

so back to:

"Am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone"

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY. If you don't share it with everyone someone who is working for someone whose company has absolutely zero altruism or sense of obligation to anything but their share holders will see to it that only Monsanto benefits from it.

Should the chemist or botanist or geneticist who came up with the discovery get paid?
They SHOULD but if you look in practice any of the chemists who came up with materials of the future in the 20th century didn't make billions or millions of dollars, they got paid their annual salary, because they signed a document when they got hired that any of their discoveries are property of the company they work for, not their own property.

Basically if you're looking at GMO with the intoxication of affluence you've let your pupils dilate to the shape of dollar signs, and that's bad.

The way IP law centers around GMO is heavily skewed towards monolithic entities, which means if you think your discovery is going to turn you into one of these monoliths over night you're going to be sorely disappointed when they steal your work and file the paperwork to own it; the same paperwork that was too expensive for you to file yourself.

Bascially, don't act like the dick who made starlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite
because some company will own your IP after you die.
 
Grownsince95

Grownsince95

❤🌱❤🤘😁✌
Supporter
1,854
263
"Am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone and lose all that hard work?"

There's a lot to unpack here:

".../lose/ all that hard work..."

There are a couple of ways to look at this:
<Ghandi> Huzzuah the whole world is now going to benefit from all that 'hard work'!
<Buddah> Huzzuah the whole world is now going to benefit from all that 'hard work'!
<MotherTeresa> Huzzuah the whole world is now going to benefit from all that 'hard work'!
etc

v.s.

<Monsanto>"NOOOOOOOO OUR PROFITS, OUR SHAREHOLDERS, OUR WORLD DOMINATION!"
<AnyGreedyMFer> "NOOOOOOOOO my aspirations to dominate the planet and receive a royalty for ever seed planted or cutting took!"


"Am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone"

You gotta really look at yourself asking that kind of question. Are you Martin Shkreli selling your pill that used to be $13.50 yesterday for $750 today that people will actually die if they don't get or can't afford? Banking on insurance's deep pockets to get paid all the while neglecting the individuals who can't afford or have been denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions...

[hypothetical you, not 'actual' you; don't take this as a personal attack, I'm sure you're a good person]
If you think you've got any "right" to sell your mite resistant seed for $750 a seed instead of $13.50 a seed, prosecuting adjacent farms for growing 'your' crops that you've made deliberate effort to spread to their property without being asked to... I personally think you 'aught to be kicked into a wood chipper along with anyone on your will who is bequeathed that intellectual property.

If you want to try to counter that with, "It's not insulin, you're not going to die if you don't by my seed, you're just going to spend more money fighting pests" you're still making an argument from the side of the fence most people would call "evil".

If you come from the argument point of, "I've made such a significant discovery the entire planet needs to benefit from, here is that work, and no body or entity is allowed exclusive rights or privilege to produce this product the entire planet is going to benefit from. Here is my donation bin, give what you feel is appropriate or can afford to part with" You're more than likely going to get a bunch of tax-exempt money, maybe [probably] enough, to never have to farm again for the rest of your life. It's almost a guarantee to see hundreds of thousands of dollars from entities struggling to get the public to forget about their past transgressions; their negative karma turns into your positive karma.

"Should that not also be intellectual property?"
I would argue it still /should/ be intellectual property, that being said, you do realize that filing for a patent on said IP means you have to /disclose the sauce/ to the patent office which google will now put on the internet which now allows any black market/counterfeit operations to occur in nation states with no extradition treaties (.cn/.ru) with the united states. You put that mite resistant strain out there and guess what, people with more resources than you are /already/ taking 'your work' and producing it at a volume you could /only dream of doing/ with no fiscal budget to even attempt any litigation efforts should they even be possible. You're talking about entities that routinely have vans pull up to intersections to have individuals kicked into them, driven off somewhere to never be seen or heard from again.

You can't have it 'be a secret' and have it 'be patented' at the same time.
You /can't/ expect to be the sole benefiting entity from a discovery that's supposed to benefit the entire planet.

Lets also be real here, if you don't discover this mite resistant gene in your $x,xxx garage lab, someone working in monsanto/dow/bayer/etc's $xx,xxx,xxx++ laboratory /will/ discover it. It's kinda your responsibility to make this information is available to and FOR everyone before someone decides that this information is to only benefit themselves and their shareholders.

so back to:

"Am I supposed to just let that out into the world for everyone"

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY. If you don't share it with everyone someone who is working for someone whose company has absolutely zero altruism or sense of obligation to anything but their share holders will see to it that only Monsanto benefits from it.

Should the chemist or botanist or geneticist who came up with the discovery get paid?
They SHOULD but if you look in practice any of the chemists who came up with materials of the future in the 20th century didn't make billions or millions of dollars, they got paid their annual salary, because they signed a document when they got hired that any of their discoveries are property of the company they work for, not their own property.

Basically if you're looking at GMO with the intoxication of affluence you've let your pupils dilate to the shape of dollar signs, and that's bad.

The way IP law centers around GMO is heavily skewed towards monolithic entities, which means if you think your discovery is going to turn you into one of these monoliths over night you're going to be sorely disappointed when they steal your work and file the paperwork to own it; the same paperwork that was too expensive for you to file yourself.

Bascially, don't act like the dick who made starlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite
because some company will own your IP after you die.
Talk about a lot to unpack....🤔

Your seedless grapes argument made much more sense to me and almost felt like we were on the same page. Obviously not.

I'm like Elon Musk level evil.

Monsanto level evil is another story.
 
shades

shades

56
8
Talk about a lot to unpack....🤔

Your seedless grapes argument made much more sense to me and almost felt like we were on the same page. Obviously not.

I'm like Elon Musk level evil.

Monsanto level evil is another story.

I'm not against you making money off your mite resistant strain, but if it does start making money it's undoubtedly going to get the attention of Monsanto, at which point, they're going to come at you with some paperwork and a wicker basket full of benjamin's rubberbanded together, and keep pelting them at you like sunday newspapers until you sign the document that sells them your technology. Don't tell me you won't sell because everyone, including me, has a price tag. If you say you will refuse to sell, well, they have ways of dealing with that too...

The same thing is happening with Google/Alphabet corp, all the companies doing AI or facial recognition are getting straight bought up. The people who came up with the tech are happy cause they just got paydayed, and google is happy because they now have exclusive rights to said technology that didn't exist seconds ago. Anyone working in the space under the guise of, "A better world for everyone"; how quickly that masque unravels when the wallet swolls...
 
Top Bottom