The love of knowledge is a kind of madness.
― C.S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet
Why has the US Supreme Court singled out human gene sequences in this way when other naturally occurring chemical compounds remain patentable?
Via the Guardian: “Ban on human gene patents is baffling but it won’t impede biotech research”.
To which I respond: no, it is not baffling, you muppet. It may be wrong - although I am from first principles inclined to believe it is not - but it is absolutely transparent why it has happened. It may be that we have created a legal and business structure which wants to patent human gene sequences and will throw a tanty if it is prevented from so doing. That does not mean it is inherently right that someone should be able to patent human gene sequences, just that we have a rather predatory financial/medical research culture. (Show of hands if you find that idea surprising.)
When did the self and the commons get so thoroughly mislaid?(via theblindgiant)
I for one am glad to see this.
The problem I have with these reports that are coming out (SocialBakers had similar findings at LeWeb London) is what do they mean by customer feedback? Some of the reports I’ve seen use every brand mention as a metric for customer feedback and working on the agency side with large brands, I can tell you most of the mentions some brands receive don’t actually need follow up. Should Yahoo! reply to every mention of their name today (following the announcement of their new CEO)? I would say that no, they don’t need to since most mentions are just RT’s of news stories.
I’m not saying that companies can’t do better but to make their point (because they obviously have a vested interest) marketing sponsored research goes on the assumption that companies should reply to everything and I don’t think they should.
h/t to NevilleHobson
I’m actually a big fan of ethnographic research and really should do a better job at it. This is a great guide.