Awesome. You just made my day.
I was wondering that as well.
Didn't realize that I was talking to Antonio Cromartie! I've been inspired. I'll trade in the minivan for a bitchin' camaro, ditch the wife and kids, and try to be more like you every day. Thanks for setting me straight.
Really? I'm emasculated because I don't want any more kids and I love my minivan?
Of course, it was not Steve Bartman that caused the cubs to lose that day. It was Alex Gozalez's inability to field a routine ground ball later in the innning.
As long as we are time travelling, we may as well get the history right.
I'm with you that it is not the "fundamental components of biology" that are being patented. What I do not understand fully is what is being patented? The articles are rather vague when it says, "cover not only the process for determining the structure of the molecules, but also the computation used to design new antibiotics." It seems like Steitz et al are hardly the first to grow these crystals. See: co-winner Ada E. Yonath. Also, it seems like the computation is more of a software patent. Do we have those in the US?
As far as your question,"Why should an organization bear this cost out of the kindness of their heart?", I don't know for a fact, but I am guessing most of the work was paid for by NIH, NSF or some other granting agency.