I finally got around to reading Michael Crichton’s new novel The story unfolds around a family that is being hunted down, because they have a rare gene that is owned by a biotechnology corporation. The company reasons that since they own the patent on the gene it’s theirs. People walking around with it without the companies consent (or without giving back the property to the rightful owner) are breaking their copyrights and are thus in violation of the law. What happens next is up for yourselves to read, but a future scenario is valuable because you can argue whether or not something like this can happen in the near future. So here’s my take on it.
Before arguing anything else, let me inform you, that patenting of genes is a very common practice…today. Loads of biotech companies and universities in the US are doing so right now. Crichton concludes in his book, that this has to stop. He builds a legal argument, why a patent of a gene is actually not a patent at all: “[…]genes are facts of nature. Like gravity, sunlight, and leaves on trees, genes exist in the natural world. Facts of nature can’t be owned[…]You can own the treatment for a disease, but not the disease itself.” (p. 417)
Although I think this is a great argument, I’m not sure whether creating more legislation is the solution. For every pro there’s a con, so you can expect counter reasoning for this as well. Resulting in endless lawsuits and filings in courts. Nonetheless he’s right.
But, ‘owning’ something is very typically something of older generations. It originates from a time after World War II, in which efficiency was key and ‘rules’ of life (or standardization) were created to establish more consumption and thus production. In order to do this, more information and transparency of customers needs was necessary. And with that transparency came more rules to guide the development and protect ones profits. I believe that in the patenting of genes the same principles of that age are applied. However, that ship has long since sailed.
Younger generations have very different views on ownership and copyrights. Compare it to the music industry. Illegally downloading music for them is a fact of nature. They think it is stupid that it is illegal: why pay for it when it’s free, was one of the quotes we’ve heard in our recent study about this next generation. In the coming age it will be much more about sharing, co-creating and access. ‘Owning’ something will no longer be sustainable. Like DRM will fail in the music industry, patenting genes will not be accepted.
Call me an optimist, but I don’t think Crichton’s depiction of the future is going to become a reality. Not because of legislation, but because we will no longer accept more rules to standardize our lives. We, as consumers and citizens are much more empowered today, than we were in the fifties. And it is that drive that is much stronger and will prevent an excess like depicted in ‘Next’.
What do you think?
Image
Interesting to see that technology was first very concentrated that bodies had to travel to the factory for example to use it. Second step became NEAR THE BODY… an age of TV for example where new technologies came within the reach of the home. Than it was time for ON THE BODY… Mobile phones, mp3 players, bluetooth headsets… but now we are entering the time of IN THE BODY!
On the empowerment part, just try to do the following:
- try to get a flexible subscription at a local health-club. Oops sorry… you can just become a full member…
- try to buy a kitchen and get a written quote… Oops sorry, you can’t take that home sir…
- try to get a coach that is available within three months. Oops sorry sir, we don’t keep stock anymore
I do sometimes wonder how empowered we have become… companies become empowered as well =)
So sometimes I’m afraid that empowerment is a good laugh in the pub… but aren’t we just sleepwalking into the future?
To have the tools is one thing, but to have a clue to do something with it is something else…
AND… the power of 1 is still limited 1×1x1×1 is still 1. The power of 10 is already completely different. SO empowerment means not becoming MORE INDIVIDUAL… but BECOMING MORE SOCIAL… empowerment is the power of micro-communities nit the power of just me. Many things described in NEXT are already in progress… when was the last time you read anything about this in the papers… ok… on the KNOWHOW page… journalists writing with amazements of our technological possibilities…
So sory Jorgen… I’m also an optimist… but sometimes it feels like we all practice the art of Self Chosen Naitivity =)
I agree that empowerment is more about becoming more social than individual. But the frustration you feel in some of your examples might be, because you are from a generation much more differently than a younger generation. I didn’t choose the music industry and the next generation by coincidence.
Firstly, people find new means of getting their music today, forcing the music industry to think about their means of distribution and business models. Yes, nothing might have changed for them yet, because we (genX) keeps the sales figures up (whereas they are decreasing in general, according to this Rolling Stone article). A younger generation will not keep those figures from plummeting even more.
Secondly, we (genX) are used to the old ways of buying and selling stuff. So we go to the store to pick a couch. We do it because we want to own the couch and it has to be new. I think that for a generation to come, this will be totally different. They don’t need to own things anymore, sharing is as good, maybe even better. And maybe their store isn’t in the physical world, they just go out on Ebay (or the Dutch Marktplaats) and look for a couch. True it might be second hand, but you can get it now. With the shelf space being infinite online the choices are infinite as well.
I’m just saying that the shift might be of such character that it’s hard to see or predict what it will look like. It’s like being in one paradigm and trying to predict another that hasn’t been there before. And I didn’t say things would stay the same. Increased empowerment doesn’t mean, we as consumers can stick to our old habits and ‘force’ an industry to adjust, it might mean that we have to change (even more).
Finally, yes, it’s true that many things described in NEXT are already in progress and that you don’t read very much about its social consequences. Although there is great debate about stem cell research, that is very much focused on these social implications. Maybe this book is a start, and maybe, it just won’t get as far as in the book.
Point taken, but you have not confinced me that this empowerment! Ok people have alternatives, have more access, but we must not underestimate the fact that companies will be empowered too! Also the younger generation takes the easy route… I don’t see them trying to change something based on ideology or principals… they download music because it save the money and is more easy, not because they believe in free music. That’s why I question you conclusion that NEXT might not become true because consumers are empowered and won’t let that happen… in that context I think you overrate empowerment… The examples I gave were to show that consumers (old & new) still accept to be fooled… Maybe that is marketing, but I do see little resistance. It is like a good movie… we know it is fiction but choose to think as if it is real for 90 minutes. So… empowerment is the possibility, but it still needs social responsibility.
Concerning Stem cell research. No empowerment and no social debate if you ask me. It is also not a discussion about issues in NEXT. To me that is old fashioned religion vs science with governments in the spotlight making decisions based on religious-roots, not social implications.
But if consumers are able to change the balance of power that companies traditionally had, that to me is a form of empowerment. (or do you think that balance isn’t shifting at all?) If that change occurs because it is more easy, or people have more access, that is empowerment as well. In the case of the music industry that will happen. But your right, it might not have too much to do with ‘free music’. But maybe that is because these youngsters simply don’t make that distinction anymore. It’s music…did you have to pay for that?
The music industry still tries to ‘guard’ their property with ever increasing technologies such as DRM. I merely draw a comparison between the rights to a song with the rights to a gene (okay, maybe that’s a little straight forward). Nonetheless, I believe that having the copyright to something will change in the future. And if that changes that will also impact patenting etc.
Does empowerment in your opinion need to be based on ideology or principles? And without it there is no empowerment?
Power is about having control.
Interactivity is about having control.
So if you talk about balance, it is a balance of powers.
How can you execute power if you have no idea what you want?
By having no idea, no vision, no goals… you give in.
Principles might be very simple: “I don’t want to pay for that”
With such a goal/ mission one would try to get free music instead of paying for it. One would even do an effort in trying to get it for free. The reason for why you want free music might be very different: Ideology or budget.
So what I mean is, that companies are still often the ones with new idea/ products/ services. Consumers responds to that (so far for the push-pull shift). Now the questions is, can consumers say: I want that but different, or can they say I don’t want you to do that etc. So are they empowered to make a difference (even a small one) in the products/ services offered to them (intrininsic product, the services, the pricing mode, the distribution etc).
If government would forbid FREE MUSIC and executive upon it far more fiercely, just like they did with the introduction of the highway speeding limit in the fifties… would you than see a rally, a demonstration of people saying WE DON’T ACCEPT THIS?! or would the say, shoot… to bad that is over?!?! The same with web-radio… oh yeah we are empowered by choice. Meanwhile government keeps rising the royalty fee making it impossible for many webradio-stations to survive… any demonstrations?! Online strkes being organized?
NO, that is because we take much of those things for granted… like privacy, access, free, public, choice… We are maybe technologically empowered, but haven’t we become socially and mentally tranquilized?
Capitalism is extremely good in blurring the boundaries with counter-cultures and blending them with the mainstream to commoditize them to such a level that the ‘anti’ is taken out. Is that a problem, nope… but let’s try and prevent that Empowerment becomes the marketing-slogan of this decade…
Jorgen, I totally agree to all the points you are mentioning and I truelly belief in Empowerment, but I also do think it is something you earn, not something that is dropped in your mailbox… it a shift in paradigm, a shift in mentality.