Saan really scared me with the book's suspense.

Let me do this, one after another.

First, this is NOT BIOTECHNOLOGY'S FAULT!! These are LEGAL LOOPHOLES and are to be plugged as and when they are realized. But, if the outrage is actually about "Dave" and "Gerard", am very much confident that they are creatures of fantasy created by MC to drive home a point.

And, true, there is no ONE gene for anything, especially related to behavior. We fought off stupid inquiries and mindless debates on how cloning of Osama Bin Laden will create another hundreds of OBLs is NOT TRUE, so is cloning Mahatma Gandhi. This is just not done. There are many many factors at play which determine our mental behavior. For that matter, even genes responsible for physical traits are not expressed fully until under some conditions, which is to say, depend on expression of many other genes. Seriously, please be assured, every one of you that have a gene for violence doesn't make you a VIOLENT person, it just means, given the situation and right conditions, you are more prone to react violently to certain situations THAN OTHERS. That's about it.

And, patenting of genes, sure it's a blot. But now there are rules in place. The USPTO which was accused of numb-mindedly issuing gene patents in days of early genomic research is now more careful about them. They have now adopted a more "better-safe-than-sorry" approach to issue patents on any controversial inventions. I know this, because am studying that goddamn thing.

And, regarding tissues and research, it's more legal than science. We need stuff, and there are rules and processes to do them. This happens when there are loopholes in the system which few unscrupulous elements use to their benefit. Just like any other branch of legal issues. It's more about the humans than the science. They will be covered (loopholes) as and when they are necessary.

The OUTT organization described towards the end should be AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers). And we are not any Merchants of Death (we 'cos I am hoping to be one of them in the next one year). When Bayh-Dole act was put in, it was made in a good spirit, to ensure that patents held by Universities didn't rot in the Federal storehouses. This gave power to the universities to make sure or ensure that the research they have been doing with FEDERAL GRANT was to be delivered to public. This is not argued. Commercialization was supposed to be a good thing for the public, unfortunately, like many other things got stuck in a lot of rut. But this isn't bad. There are a lot of benefits coming out of a University Technology Transfer office, as there might (are) few problems with it. But, hey, who/which doesn't have that??

It is also true that research nowadays is more about money than about research and science itself. This is especially true in areas of high commercialization. But one can't blame all Professors or Research Scientists for it. Without Industry, things wouldn't be at this point in the first place. The allegations of universities becoming more and more secretive about research is a direct consequence of the law. But, should we ban it altogether? No, we can't. Evolve checkstops and regulations. Make more sensible laws!!

I am writing this as an advocate of what biotechnology has to offer and what there is to this side of court. Not to launch any personal attacks. More or less of what I mentioned here is general talk rather than any research findings. It is plain common-sense. Sure there are issues being blown out of proportion, especially coming from MC, I wouldn't think twice about this.

Luckily, this is fiction, "except for the parts that are not". TRUE!

Disclaimer: The above was written in the heat of the moment. As such, few or a lot of edits may be required. But, by and large, I stand by what I have mentioned here. I am always open to discussions and anything similar to that.