Podcast appearances and mentions of david koepsell

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 453. I was approached recently by my old friend, legal scholar and philosopher David Koepsell (a fellow opponent of IP who appeared on the John Stossel show with me a few years back), (( KOL308 | Stossel: It's My Idea (2015). )) as one of his students at Texas A&M, Eliot Kalinov, was interested in my and Hoppe's work on argumentation ethics and related issues. I offered to have a discussion with Eliot about these issues for his research and publication plans, which we did yesterday (Feb. 18, 2025). We recorded it for his own purposes, and I post it here, with his permission, for those who might find the topics discussed of interest. He is very bright and asked very intelligent questions. We discuss mainly the topics noted in the title of this episode. https://youtu.be/2vjVNAF0JUA

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 375. This is my appearance on Ep.55 of Mentally Unscripted. Recorded Feb. 8, 2022; released Feb. 10, 2022. Transcript below. https://youtu.be/8SrUo79eiLk Related links: Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Do Business Without Intellectual Property (PDF) KOL 037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property” Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws? Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse? On the 3D printing threat to patent law Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement | Damien Riehl (my comments debunking it on Facebook) Lost in Space: The Copyright Dilemma Monkey selfie copyright dispute David Koepsell, Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes (review; blog) Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society (re JK Rowling and Harry Potter movies) Prohibitions of anti-circumvention technology: Anti-circumvention (wikipedia) What is DMCA anti-circumvention? EFF Asks Appeals Court to Rule DMCA Anti-Circumvention Provisions Violate First Amendment From their shownotes: This week, Stefan and Scott welcome Stephan Kinsella to Mentally Unscripted. Stephan is a brilliant, articulate libertarian legal scholar who explains why the mainstream notion that intellectual property spurs innovation is wrong. He dives in by telling us why IP laws are simply government-issued monopolies that actually impede innovation. He explains why removing IP laws would make us more prosperous. And closes by discussing other innovative ways creators can profit without protectionist laws. As always, we're building a community around Mentally Unscripted. So, share this episode with your friends and interact with us at MentallyUnscripted.com. And remember, the conclusion you reach is less important than the process you follow to get there. Guest Information Stephan's Website Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Libertarian Theory and Applications Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom Top Takeaways Intellectual Property (IP) is a body of law whose stated purpose is to protect a specific type of private property, such as inventions and creative works but is really a grant of monopoly power by the state. Instead of spurring innovation and creativity, the monopolistic nature of IP laws stifles new creative output. IP laws could be repealed today, and entrepreneurs would fill the void with new, innovative ways to earn money from their creations. Comments or Questions on this episode? Join the conversation at the Mentally Unscripted Substack. TRANSCRIPT "Transcript: Why IP Laws Destroy Innovation and How Creatives Can Profit Without Them" Stephan Kinsella, Mentally Unscripted (Feb. 10, 2022) 00:00:15 SCOTT GRAYSON: Hi there, everybody.  My name is Scott Grayson, and you're listening to Mentally Unscripted, the podcast where my cohost, Stefan, and I inspire you to think more clearly and have better conversations about the world.  When you ride along with us, we'll take you on a journey that will show you there's always more than one way to look at an issue.  You'll learn to think critically about what you see and hear and how to challenge the narratives that those in power want you to believe.  You won't always agree with us, but that's the point: to learn that we can have de...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 375. This is my appearance on Ep.55 of Mentally Unscripted. Recorded Feb. 8, 2022; released Feb. 10, 2022. Transcript below. https://youtu.be/8SrUo79eiLk Related links: Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Do Business Without Intellectual Property (PDF) KOL 037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property” Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws? Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse? On the 3D printing threat to patent law Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement | Damien Riehl (my comments debunking it on Facebook) Lost in Space: The Copyright Dilemma Monkey selfie copyright dispute David Koepsell, Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes (review; blog) Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society (re JK Rowling and Harry Potter movies) Prohibitions of anti-circumvention technology: Anti-circumvention (wikipedia) What is DMCA anti-circumvention? EFF Asks Appeals Court to Rule DMCA Anti-Circumvention Provisions Violate First Amendment From their shownotes: This week, Stefan and Scott welcome Stephan Kinsella to Mentally Unscripted. Stephan is a brilliant, articulate libertarian legal scholar who explains why the mainstream notion that intellectual property spurs innovation is wrong. He dives in by telling us why IP laws are simply government-issued monopolies that actually impede innovation. He explains why removing IP laws would make us more prosperous. And closes by discussing other innovative ways creators can profit without protectionist laws. As always, we're building a community around Mentally Unscripted. So, share this episode with your friends and interact with us at MentallyUnscripted.com. And remember, the conclusion you reach is less important than the process you follow to get there. Guest Information Stephan's Website Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Libertarian Theory and Applications Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom Top Takeaways Intellectual Property (IP) is a body of law whose stated purpose is to protect a specific type of private property, such as inventions and creative works but is really a grant of monopoly power by the state. Instead of spurring innovation and creativity, the monopolistic nature of IP laws stifles new creative output. IP laws could be repealed today, and entrepreneurs would fill the void with new, innovative ways to earn money from their creations. Comments or Questions on this episode? Join the conversation at the Mentally Unscripted Substack. TRANSCRIPT "Transcript: Why IP Laws Destroy Innovation and How Creatives Can Profit Without Them" Stephan Kinsella, Mentally Unscripted (Feb. 10, 2022) 00:00:15 SCOTT GRAYSON: Hi there, everybody.  My name is Scott Grayson, and you're listening to Mentally Unscripted, the podcast where my cohost, Stefan, and I inspire you to think more clearly and have better conversations about the world.  When you ride along with us, we'll take you on a journey that will show you there's always more than one way to look at an issue.  You'll learn to think critically about what you see and hear and how to challenge the narratives that those in power want you to believe.  You won't always agree with us, but that's the point: to learn that we can have de...

Jillian Godsil talks with Dr David Koepsell, CEO and founder of EncrypGen, a blockchain platform that allows people save, share and even sell their DNA. Currently big companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry provide DNA services; people use them to find out where they come from but as they are purchasing the service, they are asked will they agree to permit their data be shared for science. An innocuous enough question except that the tests are loss leaders and in turn these platforms sell on the DNA data for hundreds and thousands of dollars. In an unregulated market, is it right for corporates to make money off people's personal data? It's a complex area but David and EncrypGen are looking to make it safer, more transparent and even allow people make money directly from their data. Check out https://encrypgen.com/ for more information. Your data, your DNA and your money. More on David: In 2017 David launched EncrypGen and went live in 2018. The platform is a marketplace for people to record their DNA and sell it to pharmaceutical companies. The reason he set it up was as an antheses to a billion dollar business that had sprung up around DNA since the human genome was first mapped at the turn of this century. Commercial companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com are huge multimillion-dollar businesses that provide genome sequencing for individuals at a very low cost. Indeed, the cost of obtaining your genome is around $90 which is a loss leader. In an industry that is pretty much unregulated, it is estimated that this data is sold at least 200 times over. The industry on the consumer side is termed recreational, but each person is asked at time of purchase will they allow their data to be ‘used for science'. It is understood that some 80% of people comply. This then allows the testing companies to sell the data for commerce. It is mostly sold to pharmaceutical companies which in turn use it for science but this middle section is pure commerce and the space which EncrypGen wishes to disrupt. “There is no transparency as to the path the data sets take after being purchased. This has other implications for use which is why we want to offer a marketplace that uses blockchain to track the transactions – and returns control to the people who submit the data as well as monetary rewards.” More on Jillian - Jillian is an award winning journalist, broadcaster and author. She is passionate about blockchain. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08NS1LXG8

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 308. This is my appearance on John Stossel's Fox Business News show, Stossel, back on Jan. 30, 2015. I just realized I had never put it here in my podcast feed, so here it is. The full episode is streamed below (I recommend also my friend David Koepsell's segment); my audio clip is included in this podcast episode. Discussed further in KOL171 | With Albert Lu Discussing Stossel and IP.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 308. This is my appearance on John Stossel’s Fox Business News show, Stossel, back on Jan. 30, 2015. I just realized I had never put it here in my podcast feed, so here it is. The full episode is streamed below (I recommend also my friend David Koepsell's segment); my audio clip is included in this podcast episode. Discussed further in KOL171 | With Albert Lu Discussing Stossel and IP.

“Everyone in the world is the owner of something valuable for the future and this is called DNA”.DNA is very valuable and important for everybody’s life. It holds the solutions to many problems; it holds the key to a better future. DNA is very vital for us, for everything that surrounds us. “It is important for inheritance, coding for proteins and the genetic instruction guide for life and its processes. DNA holds the instructions for an organism's or each cell’s development, reproduction and ultimately death.” - Dr. Ananya Mandal, MDIn today’s episode, I am honored to present you a lifechanging, mastermind and gripping project, the only functioning Blockchain-Mediated Genetic Data marketplace, ENCRYPGEN.Created by Dr. David Koepsell and Dr. Vanessa Gonzalez, ENCRYPGEN came into life as a brilliant combination of bioethics and genomics science. ENCRYPGEN is created to solve the injustice that is given to the individuals and entire communities which with their DNA are contributing to research an unimaginable and valuable resource of data and as return are receiving nothing.To speak more about ENCRYPGEN, its story, ideas development, goal achievements and implementation of Blockchain in creating a sustainable and transparent genomic marketplace and bring value to research, medicine and DNA donor, exclusively from USA for Crypto Untangled, I have here with me an author, philosopher, attorney and an educator focused on how ethics and public policy deal with technology, I present you Dr. David Koepsell, the CEO of ENCRYPGEN.ENCRYPGEN will create values for the healthcare system, medicine and most of all, for the people. It will make DNA data accessible, secure and profitable for everyone. ENCRYPGEN is the future of genetic medicine that through dedication, advanced technology and professionalism will improve everyone’s life for the better.For more information about ENCRYPGEN, its novelty, features & solutions, how to be part of Gene-Chain, DNA token, partnerships and future developments, please go to encrypgen.com, follow them on Twitter and on Facebook @Encrypgen.This program is brought to you by CryptoNews Lebanon, a media website aiming to spread knowledge, information and news about all ins & out of crypto market and adaptation of blockchain into the MENA Region & Worldwide. So, if you are interested to hear more about the latest news and current updates, please go to cryptonewslebanon.comRead carefully, do your own research, think wisely and make the right decision for your investment!“Genes are like the story, and DNA is the language that the story is written in.” - Sam Kean

Interview with David Koepsell

*** this is not financial or legal advice*** Over 5 million people have been tested by 23andMe. The process is simple. You pay about 100USD to the company and they send you a kit. You are waiting for some genetic information about your ancestery, your aliments, possible future health issues. Seems like a good deal. But, did you know that they then take your DNA data and sell it to whoever wants it? 
 Our next guest Dr. Dave Koepsell tell us all about this process and also lets us know how you can take control if this data and either not give it out, or sell it and make profit yourself. Show Links: CRYPTO101podcast.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=8429526 Twitter: twitter.com/Crypto101Pod twitter.com/BrycePaul101 twitter.com/PizzaMind www.instagram.com/crypto_101 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/101Crypto/ https://www.facebook.com/CRYPTO101Podcast/ **THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL OR LEGAL ADVICE** © Copyright 2019 Boardwalk Flock, LLC All Rights Reserved Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnipBtKvnAo Polaroid by extenz https://soundcloud.com/extenz Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b... Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/YnipBtKvnAoAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

*** this is not financial or legal advice*** Over 5 million people have been tested by 23andMe. The process is simple. You pay about 100USD to the company and they send you a kit. You are waiting for some genetic information about your ancestery, your aliments, possible future health issues. Seems like a good deal. But, did you know that they then take your DNA data and sell it to whoever wants it? 
 Our next guest Dr. Dave Koepsell tell us all about this process and also lets us know how you can take control if this data and either not give it out, or sell it and make profit yourself. Show Links: CRYPTO101podcast.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=8429526 Twitter: twitter.com/Crypto101Pod twitter.com/BrycePaul101 twitter.com/PizzaMind www.instagram.com/crypto_101 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/101Crypto/ https://www.facebook.com/CRYPTO101Podcast/ **THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL OR LEGAL ADVICE** © Copyright 2019 Boardwalk Flock, LLC All Rights Reserved Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnipBtKvnAo Polaroid by extenz https://soundcloud.com/extenz Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b... Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/YnipBtKvnAo

In this episode, we talk about genomic data ownership and privacy ethics with David Koepsell, lawyer, author, and philosopher. http://davidkoepsell.com/ Check out the Encrypgen Market Demo - https://marketdemo.encrypgen.info/ Show Notes • Introduction of David’s background • Brief journey into blockchain • Patenting genes and ownership of personal data • Origins of Encrypgen - value proposition to upload individual genetic information securely on a research marketplace • Multichain, used by Encypgen, is built specifically for permissioned blockchain and satisfies the requirements of GDPR • Importance of Individual Metadata to make Genetic information valuable • Search capability of the genetic data and metadata • Value of genotyping and sequencing • The cost of sequencing one human genome has gone down from over $100M in 2001 to under $1000 today. • Challenging ICO Offering experience • How will Encypgen generate revenue? • Genomic Data Markeplace • How will the value and price of a person’s genetic change over time? • 23andme surveys and the collection of phenotypic data • Research Impact of the study of Epigenetics • Data Validation and accuracy • We will need multiple generations of genetic data to bring us tons of new insights about humans and health. • Genes are not your destiny • Ethical considerations • Breaking Bad and Philosophy - the book • Community building and importance of community support • David’s Upcoming event dates and locations- (https://www.healthfurther.com/ Nashvile, TN Aug 28-29), (https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-exponential-healthcare-conference-tickets-47599097181 Newport, CA Oct 10) GINA Act - https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm News Corner - A subsidiary of Pornhub called Tube8 has entered into a partnership with Vice Industry Token. https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/08/17/pornhub-tube8-blockchain-cryptocurrency/

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 235. This is a short video produced by the Federalist Society (Feb. 6, 2018), featuring me and IP law professor Kristen Osenga (I had met Osenga previously, as a co-panelist at an IP panel at NYU School of Law in 2011). I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice—more on this below. To produce this video, Osenga and I each spoke separately, before a green screen, in studios in our own cities, for about 30 minutes. The editing that boiled this down to about 5 minutes total was superbly done. see also James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] Transcript below. From the Federalist Society's shownotes on their Facebook post: Why does the government protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks? Should it? Kristen Osenga and Stephan Kinsella explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Kristen Osenga, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, and Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Differing Views: Libertarianism.org: Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property A 21st Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform Mises Institute: The Case Against IP Law and Liberty: Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property Harvard Law: Theories of Intellectual Property I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice, given that many libertarian-related groups either outright favor IP or refuse to condemn it or to allow abolitionist voices. Since the dawn of the Internet in the mid-90s, the effects of patent and especially copyright law have become magnified and more noticeable. Thus more libertarians began to direct their attention to this issue. Gradually, scholarship emerged and the consensus began to shift over the last couple decades from an inchoate Randian pro-IP attitude, and/or apathy, to a interest in and opposition to IP law. It is safe to say that most thinking libertarians, most Austrians, anarchists, and left-libertarians, are now predominately opposed to IP.  (See “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”, “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”.) Accordingly, many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at least are willing to host speakers and writers with this view, such as: the Mises Institute, and various Mises Institutes around the world (Sweden, Brasil, UK, etc.); the  Property and Freedom Society; and others, like the IEA (see Stephen Davies' Intellectual Property Rights: Yay or Nay); the Adam Smith Forum-Russia, which had me present a sweeping case for IP abolition; and the Adam Smith Institute in London, which also has featured strong voices in opposition to IP (Adam Smith Institute: Do not feed the patent troll; Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil). FEE has featured my work and that of other IP abolitionists, like Sheldon Richman. Even the Mercatus Center has promoted strong IP reform, although not outright abolition (see, e.g., Tom Bell, What is Intellectual Privilege?). And, I've been invited to speak against IP in a number of fora, podcasts, and radio shows—PorcFest, Libertopia, Students for Liberty, FreeTalkLive, and so on. Even John Stossel's Fox show featured me and David Koepsell arguing the abolitionist side. So. This is good progress, and parallels the increasing interest in IP by libertarians and their increasing opposition to this type of law. But not all libertarian groups, sadly, recognize IP for the unjust state institution that it is. The Libertarian Party, for example, shamefully takes no stance on IP in its platform.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 235. This is a short video produced by the Federalist Society, featuring me and IP law professor Kristen Osenga (I had met Osenga previously, as a co-panelist at an IP panel at NYU School of Law in 2011). I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice—more on this below. To produce this video, Osenga and I each spoke separately, before a green screen, in studios in our own cities, for about 30 minutes. The editing that boiled this down to about 5 minutes total was superbly done. From the Federalist Society's shownotes on their Facebook post: Why does the government protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks? Should it? Kristen Osenga and Stephan Kinsella explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Kristen Osenga, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, and Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Differing Views: Libertarianism.org: Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property A 21st Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform Mises Institute: The Case Against IP Law and Liberty: Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property Harvard Law: Theories of Intellectual Property I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice, given that many libertarian-related groups either outright favor IP or refuse to condemn it or to allow abolitionist voices. Since the dawn of the Internet in the mid-90s, the effects of patent and especially copyright law have become magnified and more noticeable. Thus more libertarians began to direct their attention to this issue. Gradually, scholarship emerged and the consensus began to shift over the last couple decades from an inchoate Randian pro-IP attitude, and/or apathy, to a interest in and opposition to IP law. It is safe to say that most thinking libertarians, most Austrians, anarchists, and left-libertarians, are now predominately opposed to IP.  (See “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”, “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”.) Accordingly, many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at least are willing to host speakers and writers with this view, such as: the Mises Institute, and various Mises Institutes around the world (Sweden, Brasil, UK, etc.); the  Property and Freedom Society; and others, like the IEA (see Stephen Davies' Intellectual Property Rights: Yay or Nay); the Adam Smith Forum-Russia, which had me present a sweeping case for IP abolition; and the Adam Smith Institute in London, which also has featured strong voices in opposition to IP (Adam Smith Institute: Do not feed the patent troll; Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil). FEE has featured my work and that of other IP abolitionists, like Sheldon Richman. Even the Mercatus Center has promoted strong IP reform, although not outright abolition (see, e.g., Tom Bell, What is Intellectual Privilege?). And, I've been invited to speak against IP in a number of fora, podcasts, and radio shows—PorcFest, Libertopia, Students for Liberty, FreeTalkLive, and so on. Even John Stossel's Fox show featured me and David Koepsell arguing the abolitionist side. So. This is good progress, and parallels the increasing interest in IP by libertarians and their increasing opposition to this type of law. But not all libertarian groups, sadly, recognize IP for the unjust state institution that it is. The Libertarian Party, for example, shamefully takes no stance on IP in its platform. This would be like failing to oppose chattel slavery, conscription, or the drug war in a society where these things were going on.

David Koepsell earned his PhD in philosophy as well as his law degree from the University at Buffalo, where he studied with Barry Smith. He has authored numerous articles as well as authored and edited several books, including Searle on the Institutions of Social Reality, The Ontology of Cyberspace: Law, Philosophy, and the Future of Intellectual Property. He has lectured worldwide on issues ranging from civil rights, philosophy, science, ontology, intellectual property theory, society, and religion. Koepsell has practiced law, worked for Bowstreet, Inc. as an ontologist in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and taught at the University at Buffalo. He was appointed Assistant Professor of Philosophy at TU Delft in September 2008. Koepsell and I spend quite some time discussing his controversial views on patenting and copyright, which naturally leads us into the foundations of ethics and law. Despite Koepsell's largely analytic style, we also touch upon phenomenology and the value of continental philosophy. Since Koepsell was executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, we also dicuss the culture wars in the US before concluding with the relation between popular culture and philosophy.

David Koepsell is an author, philosopher, and attorney whose recent research focuses on the nexus of science, technology, ethics, and public policy. He is Assistant Professor, Philosophy Section, Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management at the Technology University of Delft, in The Netherlands, andSenior Fellow, 3TU Centre for Ethics and Technology, The Netherlands. He is also the author of The Ontology of Cyberspace: Philosophy, Law, and the Future of Intellectual Property, as well as numerous scholarly articles on law, philosophy, science, and ethics. In this interview with D.J. Grothe, David Koepsell discusses the implications of corporations patenting parts of the human genome, and how current patent practices negatively impact basic scientific research in genetics. He reviews the history of the practice of patenting genes and contrasts private ownership of gene sequences found in nature with that of the public ownership of the work of the Human Genome Project. He contrasts discovery with invention, and argues that patents should apply only to the latter. He details the relationship of human genes being patented with the practices of big agribusiness owning engineered crops, such as Monsanto's "terminator corn." He discusses the ACLU's recent lawsuit against Myriad Genetics on behalf of scientists and cancer patients, and how it may lead to one of the most important legal battles in the history of biotechnology. He talks about "upstream" and "downstream" patents, and how this impacts genetic research. And he discusses various solutions currently proposed for the problems resulting from private ownership of naturally occurring gene sequences.

David Koepsell is the Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism, North America's leading organization for nonreligious people. An author, philosopher and an attorney, David's work focuses mostly on the nexus of science, technology, ethics and public policy. In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, David explores the relationship between secular humanism and religion, whether secular humanism is just a religion for the nonreligious, the "tenets" of secular humanism, and addresses many challenges to the worldview both from Christian activists and from those in the "atheist movement." He also justifies it as a viable naturalistic life-stance, competitive with supernatural ways of looking at the world.

Paul Kurtz is founder and chair of the Center for Inquiry and a number of other organizations. A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, and Prometheus Books. He is editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. He is the author or editor of over forty five books, including the recent Science and Religion: Are They Compatible. Throughout the last almost 40 years, Paul has been a leading defender of science and reason against the prevailing cults of irrationality in our society. He has been interviewed widely in the media on subjects ranging from alternative medicine and communication with the dead, to the historicity of Jesus. In this discussion with D. J. Grothe, Kurtz talks about the what he calls "creedal fascism," the connection between religion and violence, why it is so vital for humanity's future to critically examine religion, and also recounts his first published fears about Islamic extremism leading to world-wide violence over ten years ago in Free Inquiry. Also in this episode, David Koepsell, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, shares "An Open Letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."