Molecular Biology, Genetic Engineering and the Connection to RPGs

Molecular biology breaks down DNA into basic genetic codes, revealing the building blocks of our very being. Identifying these fundamental materials permits science to make measured predictions regarding the manifestation of traits in an organism. Genetic engineering (defined as the heritable, directed alteration of an organism) works toward the manipulation of this coding at the outset of cellular development to achieve desired results.

It is a practice that is both contraversial and profitable. In an effort to recoup their costs, biotech companies, educational institutions and hospitals will race to patent discoveries that some argue should not be patentable. Obtaining a patent on an invention endows the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling such invention in the United States. It also grants them the right to prevent others from importing such invention into the United States.

Two categories of patent are applicable to genetic engineering: utility patents and plant patents. "Utility patents may issue to the person who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The three basic requirements to obtain a utility patent are nonobviousness, novelty and utility:

Nonobviousness - the average person in the field to which the patent relates, who is aware of all prior art (previous knowledge and inventions) must find that the invention provides new and unexpected results;

Novelty - the invention must contribute something that is outside the scope of existing knowledge in the particular field; and

Utility - there must be practical use for the invention; otherwise it is just a non-patentable, theoretical phenomenon or idea.

Plant patents may issue to an inventor who "has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state." (PTO website). For the topic of RPGs and Molecular Biology, this post will focus on utility patents.

The owner of a patent in a genetic invention enjoys their exclusive rights for twenty years. Third parties who want to use the technology must license or negotiate other arrangements with the patent owner. Dissenters of this scheme argue that "patent license disputes threaten to close off research and clinical applications of some of the biomedical discoveries that Americans have paid billions to enable." Fears that patients might start demanding financial rewards for participating in research," have been rendered somewhat moot by the Supreme Court of California's ruling that donors of genetic samples do not have a property interest in their genetic material [Moore v. Regents, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied 499 U.S. 936 (1991)].

Still those that make use of the genetic samples to create codes and processes do gain a property interest in their work through the patent process. Could we liken this property interest to the one that game developers receive in the game codes that they string together in order to create the desired output for their game? It is my belief that the RPG or Role Playing Game is the most analogous and suitable example from the ken of video games to make the comparison to genetic engineering. Could the scientific community benefit from examining the RPG?

The genere of video games dubbed "RPGs" allow players to begin their quest by choosing a character, usually from a variety of races with different traits and specialties. Some games permit full customization of this character down to the most minute physical details. Through the course of the game the player determines how to improve their character in terms of skills, attributes, equipment and special abilities. Often improvements are given as rewards for overcoming challenges and unlocking achievements in the game. Also each game may establish a unique system that determines the scope of freedom that players may enjoy in choosing what to improve - some automate the process while others are completely hands on. More recent developments in video game technologies allow for "smart RPGs" to consider the individual players actual playing style and then levels up the attributes the player uses most, (a good example of such a work is Elder Scrolls Oblivion).

In the video game industry copyrights are the most frequent form of intellectual property right (IPR) for game codes. They attract literary protection, and as a work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, last about three times longer than patents. The scope of copyright protection, however, can be quite thin when compared to patent. For another designer or game programmer to secure their own copyright they would only have to change some details of the RPG to create an expression of mere originality. The basic play style of the RPG and how the character develops is enabled by the game engine. Codes the developer puts into a particular piece of software determine the output of the game engine.

Are these codes analogous to the DNA and patterns patented by the genetic engineering community? If so, could the video game industry benefit from using more patents in the code/game engine interface? "Patents are the least-known IPR to the game industry and usually held as the most expensive and frequently irrelevant IPR." (IGDA Whitepaper) While the patent lasts for a shorter time than the copyright, it's scope of coverage is much broader than that covered by copyright. The novelty requirement is a higher standard and harder to satisfy than the mere originality required in copyright. Therefore if a patent issues for a given process the inventor has a stronger protection in what they create than the author who creates a new expression. By employing copyright protection similar to that granted to codes iin video game industry, those seeking to protect developments in genetic sequencing might be able to protect their interests while alleviating the fears of halting the progress of science. I do not know if this would adequately protect the genetic codes, b/c it would depend whether they are considered more analogous to the copyrighted software codes or the patented processes that drive game engines. Regardless, I think that there is something that each industry can learn from one another.