dna test no longer on ofa - Page 3

The simple solution I spoke of was a DNA test being used to eliminate a disease or syndrome from the gene pool .. that is not going to happen. A class action is now exceedingly much more difficult to do since Republicans have changed the rules to restrict the size and scope of class actions to protect their big business donors from damages. Since dogs are considered livestock the damages will be limited to the value of the tests and the market value of any dogs killed as a result of the testing fraud. Finally .. most businesses hide behind a layer of corporate individual immunity .. corporations are people but they can't go to jail while the officers and employees of the corporation are about as likely to be held responsible as a general is for getting his troops killed or for his troops killing civilians. Last but not least there is corporate bankruptcy .. the best example is the GM case during the banking crisis that allowed GM to weasel out of money and insurance owed to retired employees while using public money to finance the come back of GM absent the contracts made with employees while giving it's exec raises and bonuses. Corporate fraud follows a familiar pattern of robbing the public, bankruptcy, huge profits for those committing the fraud, and a new company with a new scam .. fraud, bankruptcy, repeat is the dynamic state of fraudulent corporations.

Bubba~ The simple solution I spoke of was a DNA test being used to eliminate a disease or syndrome from the gene pool .. that is not going to happen.

But testing for a genetic abnormality in a specific, individual dog is not equal to attempting to 'eliminate' the disease/syndrome from the gene pool, but is an attempt to prevent producing offspring with an issue which will cause heartache to the puppy owner.....I think most DNA 'tests' are fraud money makers.

I have a close relative who works with genetics and testing .. nothing about her work is simple and results are never black and white .. test results that were no problem 5 years ago are now interpreted as problematic while some test results that were indicative of problems are now known to be fine. Sometimes the more we think we know the less we actually understand when it comes to DNA testing and lab results. Humans do the testing and interpret the results and there are few safeguards in place to regulate the industrial use of genetics or testing .. it is the wild West with two different labs interpreting the same results differently. Nobody can say which is right and which is wrong .. no real controls exist outside the knowledge and integrity of the geneticists and professionals in the field. The family tree and the presence of disease or syndromes in the maternal or paternal lines is still the gold standard and the DNA testing often just confirms the source as genetic, spontaneous mutations or environmental. Spontaneous mutations are more often the source of most maladies. Thus a dog and his or her kin ( vertical pedigree ) that produces normal pups but carries a less well understood mutation should not be eliminated from the breeding population. If we are supposed to eliminate every dog that carries a deleterious mutation from the gene pool we can kill or neuter them all as they all do. Just as in humans, dogs all carry several genes or mutations of genes that would result in serious health problems or death if fully expressed. How genes are regulated and switched on or off is not known but we know that environment plays a huge role.

"In short, the journal editors state that some issues of concern were not addressed during the peer review process, and that they undertook their own review of the study. From that, they concluded that the study was seriously flawed, and that the Cox-2 promotor suggested to be linked to the disorder was in fact a neutral DNA variant."

Dogenes actually obtained a patent on the gene in question, so would not allow any other labs to do their own research...that is a huge problem and turns out to have been a scam.

FYI, bubba, to be clear I don't believe in the DM test, nor any other DNA tests for breeding selection.

The legality of patenting human genes has been nullified. In effect finding or identifying a natural human gene or mutation does not allow that finding to be patented. Not sure about dog genes but I suspect those genes naturally occurring or their mutations are considered public property. New gene editors and insertion of new or novel genes through editing or use of alien DNA ( to that species ) is subject to patent law and intellectual property rights. The landmark case that overturned the right of patent on human genes was Myriad Genetics which had patented the BRCA gene and it's variants, charged ridiculous prices for their testing, and what was worse would not allow anyone to use the gene in their research effectively shutting down cancer research involving the BRCA gene mutation and anything involving the mutation for years. Presently my understanding is that the test method can be patented but the gene can not be patented making it much easier to develop therapies and also to question and check the discovery and methodology leading to the gene's discovery and claimed effects.

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009092171A1?cl=en

What do you make of that ^^  it's too complicated for me, lol.

 

I researched dogenes and their claim to the so-called rg gene. The lab at U of M wrote an article a few years ago speaking to the 'patent' of the gene preventing research.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049703

 

Compositions and methods for detecting rd patented by dogenes.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016684

SCOTUS voted 9-0 against the Myriad patent in 2013 .. saying that discovery is not patentable but invention is.  See below.  Spontaneous mutations and mutations caused by chemical or radiation may also be patentable if the applicant can claim invention and unique traits due to manipulation.  Godzilla could perhaps patent his Godzilla genes??

“Myriad did not create anything,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. “To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

The course of scientific research and medical testing in other fields will also be shaped by the court’s ruling, which drew a sharp distinction between DNA that appears in nature and synthetic DNA created in the laboratory. That distinction may alter the sort of research and development conducted by the businesses that invest in the expensive work of understanding genetic material.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-may-not-be-patented.html?_r=0

The problem as I see it is that, unlike the so called DNA test for DM, no other labs were allowed to conduct the 'test' for rd because of the patent.

Research costs money. Investors want a financial return on their investment.

Hubba's personal war on medicine for profit is idiotic.