Protecting Our Genome

Read More

Human Genome by Dollar Bin

Mapping the Human Genome was probably one of the greatest achievements of our time.

Scientists were able to unravel our DNA and gain an understanding of how its building blocks, chromosomes, specifically affected our lives.  For the first time we were able to find out if we were susceptible to various diseases, where our ancestors came from, what might happen to us physically as we aged.  Companies like 23 and me, and deCode have sprung up offering a comprehensive low cost service to analyze and help you understand your own DNA for around $USD 500.  This is an exciting development which is changing the lives of many people, and offering hope to others.

At the same time, multinational drug companies such as Myriad Genetics obtained their own genomic information for use with tests such as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 which can determine a woman’s susceptibility to Breast Cancer and Ovarian Cancer.  The problem was they claimed exclusive ownership of the information, and legally threatened anyone else who tried to use this genomic information to do their own tests.  They charged women in the USA $3,700 for the test.

In other words, Myriad was saying “Information about this part of your genetic material belongs to our company, you’re not allowed to use it, but we’ll do the tests for you if you pay us a lot of money.  And if you try to do the testing yourself, we’ll sue you”.

Thankfully, a district court judge in the USA has ruled that Myriad’s patents are invalid.  The judge said that the company didn’t invent the genetic information – they just discovered it.  And you can’t patent something you discover, only something you invent.

The bigger issue in all of this is that the Human Genome belongs to all of us.  In computer jargon, it should be “Open Source”.  It’s abhorrent that a company can come along and try to hoodwink you into thinking that they own information about your genome.  Multinational drug companies try to tell us that unless they can own and exploit that information, they won’t develop life saving tests.

Rubbish!  These charlatans are building upon the freely available work of groups such as the Human Genome Project. They can’t then claim ownership of it, and bully anyone who disagrees with them.  If they don’t like the situation, too bad.  Some other organization will come along and quickly fill the gap.

This information belongs to the human race.  It’s inappropriate for it to be traded around like MP3’s or computer games.

I have become a AGW skeptic

Read More

"Question mark" by Marco Bellucci

 NOTE. In the seven years since I first published this post about global warming, I have since changed my mind.  I believe the decisions we make about our use of energy and fossil fuels affects our planet.  The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere affect global temperatures.  Rather than delete this post, I have decided to leave it here in the interests of transparency, and to admit that in 2009 I got it wrong.  Besides, the un-professional actions of a few academics does not change the science.
Neil. May 2016.

At first I wasn’t sure.

Were humans really heating the planet up through carbon emissions?

I thought perhaps the best thing was to play it safe.  Slap a tax on CO2 emissions, and hopefully the planet would be better off.

I have now decided I am a skeptic of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  I am not convinced that human activity is increasing the temperature of the planet.

Furthermore I am disgusted at the level of obfuscation and political spin that has crept into the “science” behind this issue as is evidenced by the Email Archives of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.  The scientific process must be an open, peer reviewed process where political spin has nothing to do with the process, where criticism is welcomed and openly debated, and where the data is made available in its entity without editing for all to see.  The email archives I allude to show that this has not been happening.

I passionately believe we must reduce pollution and other environmental damage.  We must preserve wilderness and bio-diversity.  We must put a check on unmitigated development and land clearing.  We must develop cleaner and greener ways of producing energy.

But, I don’t think that the government’s plan to impose a new tax on Carbon Dioxide will achieve any of this.

The skeptic in me thinks:

1. The government has borrowed and spent more than was prudent as part of a knee-jerk, poorly targeted stimulus package to try and stem the affects of the Global Financial Crisis.

2. The government needs more money.

3. The tax behind the Emissions Trading Scheme is money for jam – an easy way to raise money, by scaring people into believing that if we don’t pay more tax, the planet is doomed.

4. The government would happily participate in a misinformation campaign to secure future tax revenue.

I will be happy to be proven wrong.

Mixed Bag

Read More

Global Citizens Rest Easy by mikecogh

Some ticks and crosses for recent political events:

√Julia Gillard visited India to reassure the Indian people that we want their students here, we’re serious about protecting them, and we’ll shut down any bogus educational organizations.  This is a smart move.  It’s a good example of Customer Service – how to turn a bad situation around by listening to concerns and doing something about it. The Indian government responded by inviting Australian universities to set up branches in India.

XNSW minister John Della Bosca resigned because he got caught having an affair.  John Della Bosca’s personal life is irrelevant.  The comments in the media about him missing planes because of his secret relationship are lame.  The bottom line is whether or not he’s doing his job effectively or not, whether the NSW tax payers are getting value from his efforts, and whether his actions and those of his government are taking his state in the right direction.  If you want to remove a government minister due to incompetence, that’s fine – it’s politics.  But resigning, or getting kicked out because you had an affair is stupid.  What sort of precedent does it set?  If we want to get rid of a government now, do we forget about policy debates and performance indicators, and just take the easy way out and dig through their dirty laundry.  This is grubby journalism, and stupid politics.  And NO I don’t support NSW Labor, or their politics.  But Della Bosca should still be a cabinet minister today.

√ Victorian minister Tim Holding was rescued from the Victorian Alps after two days being stranded on a mountain top.  This is great news, and a good example of emergency services getting the job done when needed.  Yes, he should have taken an EPIRB and probably should have taken a couple of mates with him, but despite that it’s good to see healthy active political leaders getting out and exploring the world, and surviving calamities.

XACMA refuses to ban junk food ads.  The Australian Communications and Media Authority is toothless, and without gonads.  They are incapable of doing anything courageous if it threatens the profitability of commercial broadcasters.  Australian Commercial Media requires more regulation, not less.  They intrude into every area of our lives.  Most of our chubby little kids are addicted to the junk they serve up.  Getting tougher with them won’t harm them at all.  All commercial media has to compete in the same environment.  Television advertisers still have to advertise.  I just think they should have a few more boundaries so they learn to behave properly.  The bottom line is that Australian Media can’t or won’t regulate itself.  The Government needs to bite the bullet on this.

√XA bet each way for the Gorgon Gas project.  It’s a good outcome which is a result of the efforts of both Labor and Liberal governments, past and current in WA and Federally.  It injects billions of dollars into the Australian economy.  BUT, environment minister Peter Garret was pretty much sidelined by the whole process.  The project was announced and feted BEFORE Garret had given his approval as environment minister.  Regardless of what the spin-doctors say, it shows that he’s considered irrelevant by the major players, and that the environment comes second when large amounts of money are involved.

XWayne Swan has left the spending tap on, money is splattering everywhere, and our current account deficit is blowing out.  Yes, our economy has benefited from economic stimulus, but Swan forgets that the stimulus doesn’t need to be a blunt instrument.  The Australian economy is growing, but Swan needs to be aware that the extra cash is boosting imports, and hurting exports.  If our current account deficit continues, we’ll be staring at Paul Keating’s “Banana Republic” in the not too distant future, with a $300 billion foreign debit too boot.

Politics at its Best

Read More

Some really good things happen in the Australian Parliament at times.  But sadly they receive little media coverage, because the stories aren’t as immediately exciting as some of the more tawdry events.

For example, how many column-inches, how much air-time has been wasted on the “Ute-Gate” saga about fake emails, and prime-ministerial favours to political donors?

One story worthy of far more attention than it received was the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill.

In 1992, the then Labor Government, with the support of the Liberal / National opposition, introduced a law which placed Assylum Seekers (men, women and children) in Mandatory Detention, and made them liable for the cost of that detention.  This meant when a detainee was eventually deported, or released, he or she was presented with an invoice for the cost of that detention.  An amount which could easily run into tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes even exceeding one hundred thousand dollars.  This, in a country where we don’t charge rapists, murderers and other criminals the cost of their detention – regardless of their nationality.

These people came to our shores for help, and we were treating them worse than criminals.

The mandatory detention policy continued under Coalition Governments througout the Howard Years.  It wasn’t until 2009 that the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 was introduced by the current Labor government.  Sadly, the bill wasn’t supported on a bi-partisan basis, and the Liberals and Nationals did not support it.

But to their credit, four Liberal members voted against their party, and supported the bill: Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent, Judi Moylan and Danna Vale.  Although you might not often do it, I’d recommend you read their speeches.  It’s good stuff, and helps underline the fact that we do have decent human beings in the parliament, who care about justice, and doing the right thing:

• Mr Petro Georgiou (Kooyong)


• Mr Russel Broadbent (McMillan)


• Mrs Judi Moylan (Pearce)


• Mrs Danna Vale (Hughes)

We've moved!

This blog has moved!

The new address is

http://pol.neilennis.com/

Please update your browser and RSS reader to the new links. All of my existing articles have moved too.

I'm now using WordPress as my blogging platform, and really like it.

If you've got any comments or suggestions, please let me know.