• Do short people live longer than tall people? Studies have shown mixed results over the last 100 years, but more recent studies are leaner towards shorter people having a slightly longer life expectancy. [url]
• The immortal jellyfish has been studied for its unique ability to reverse its aging and repeat its lifecycle without dying. However, there aren't that many jellyfish experts in the world, and we still don't know much about how/why this creature can seemingly live forever. [url]
• Nature (the scientific journal) has made several articles on aging open and free to the public. The science of senescence is fascinating, even if it hasn't really resulted in immortality. Who wants to live forever, anyway? [url]

But the same logic could be applied to the commercialization of publicly-funded research. Why should people be asked to pay often elevated market prices demanded by companies for these products -- which naturally try to maximize profitability -- when it was the public that funded the initial work that made those products possible in the first place?

As with open access, the challenge here is to come up with an alternative approach that allows new medical treatments to be made available as widely as possible. A recent paper by John Frangioni in Nature Biotechnology, pointed out by @MaliciaRogue, offers a novel solution based on open-source development managed by a non-profit foundation:

In this open-source model, sublicensing to for-profit entities is encouraged but is nonexclusive. For-profit companies licensing the technology are encouraged to innovate on the platform, which will provide protectable IP for them, help lower the barriers to market entry and provide patients with even better versions of the technology. Open-source information exchange and evolution of the technology is encouraged rather than discouraged, with the premise that knowledge will empower for-profit companies that want to carve out IP-protected niches while empowering academic scientists with a firm grasp of the state of the art.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

• Little worms (Caenorhabditis elegans) on the International Space Station are actually living longer in a micro-gravity environment than their earth-bound relatives. Researchers have identified several genes that contribute to this unexpected lengthening of longevity, but living on a space station isn't the fountain of youth. [url]
• The cost of sequencing the human genome has fallen dramatically from $3 billion for the first one... to a few thousand dollars. Having access to the information in our DNA could lead to lifespans of 150 years, but getting hit by a bus would still be a problem. [url]
• Certain kinds of exercise may extend your life more than others. Aerobic exercise is correlated with living a bit longer than non-aerobic exercise -- so expect a few more infomercials to start plugging exercise equipment with claims of helping you live longer. [url]
• Senescent cells can no longer divide, and they might bring down neighboring cells and create various symptoms of aging. Eliminating these senescent cells could lead to more age-resistant organs -- and people living longer (perhaps as undead zombies). [url]

• Underground chemists are making synthetic versions of recreational drugs that are technically legal to possess and sell. This has been going on for years, but recently, there have been increasing political efforts to make these "chemically-similar" drugs illegal. [url]
• Amateur scientists are working on all kinds of crazy biological experiments and ideas such as rewriting the DNA of an acorn so that it grows into the shape of oak furniture. The zombie apocalypse might not come from a megacorporation, but from biology experiment gone wrong in a garage... [url]
• Albert Hofmann discovered LSD had interesting effects in the 1940s, and he said that it spoke to him: "Don't give me to the pharmacologist, he won't find anything." And lots of people have tried LSD since, including Steve Jobs and Aldous Huxley. [url]
• To discover more interesting science-related stuff, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

In particular, the steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries.

If a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself. A patent, for example, could not simply recite a law of nature and then add the instruction “apply the law.” Einstein, we assume, could not have patented his famous law by claiming a process consisting of simply telling linear accelerator operators to refer to the law to determine how much energy an amount of mass has produced (or vice versa). Nor could Archimedes have secured a patent for his famous principle of flotation by claiming a process consisting of simply telling boat builders to refer to that principle in order to determine whether an object will float.

Patent protection is, after all, a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the promise of exclusive rights provides monetary incentives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery. On the other hand, that very exclusivity can impede the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention, by, for example, raising the price of using the patented ideas once created, requiring potential users to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing patents and pending patent applications, and requiring the negotiation of complex licensing arrangements. At the same time, patent law’s general rules must govern inventive activity in many different fields of human endeavor, with the result that the practical effects of rules that reflect a general effort to balance these considerations may differ from one field to another....

In consequence, we must hesitate before departing from established general legal rules lest a new protective rule that seems to suit the needs of one field produce unforeseen results in another. And we must recognize the role of Congress in crafting more finely tailored rules where necessary.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Regularly, patent advocates tell me how important patents are for the biotech and life science industries. However, there apparently is academic research in the works that shows that patents actually slow down innovation in biotech. The specific example we discussed was that there is increasing evidence that when a professor or company gets a patent in the field of genetics research, other researchers simply stop doing work in that specific area. As a result, the number of researchers on a particular topic decreases, especially if the patent is broad. It's not hard to theorize that this results in less innovation around this area over time.

The current era of intellectual property is waning. It has been based on two faulty assumptions made nearly three decades ago: that since some intellectual property (IP) is good, more must be better; and that IP is about controlling knowledge rather than sharing it. These assumptions are as inaccurate in biotechnology – the field of science covered by this report – as they are in other fields from music to software.

An analysis of IP laws alone gives a distorted understanding of how IP facilitates innovation and dissemination. Such an analysis must be complemented by an understanding of business and governmental practice as well as the public and private institutions and entities that create, grant and govern IP.