At our hospital, they have replaced the inpatient electronic medical records system at least 3 times in the last 20 years, and our data warehouse, which has been around for more than 15 years, contains a large percentage of that clinical data from the different (current & historical) systems. A lot of this data is still used pretty actively for retrospective research, recruitment of patients for clinical trials, operational and financial resource planning, forecasting, cost-accounting, etc. In other words, at our institution, most of our data is used all the time, but for different purposes.
C:\Users\#########\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application\6.0.437.3\pdf.dll (MIME type: application/pdf)
Adobe's PDF plugin:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Acrobat 9.0\Acrobat\Browser\nppdf32.dll (MIME types: application/pdf, application/vnd.adobe.pdfxml, application/vnd.adobe.x-mars, application/vnd.fdf, application/vnd.adobe.xfdf, application/vnd.adobe.xdp+xml, application/vnd.adobe.xfd+xml)
The files themselves appear to be quite different, and handle different MIME types, so hopefully this is not simply Adobe's stuff packaged within Chrome.
Link to Original Source
Therefore if there were any serious argument in favor of the patentability of genes, then I would argue that the taxpayers that bore the burden of supporting such research are also entitled to a stake in the returns from the patents. In the very least, they could start by paying the NIH and other sponsors of their research in the same way that they pay the Universities where the research is typically conducted, so that these funding agencies may then invest in other researchers.
Surveillance is only the start, however. Military drones quickly moved from reconnaissance to strike, and if the British police follow suit, their drones could be armed -- but with non-lethal weapons rather than Hellfire missiles.
The article suggests that they could potentially go the same way as the military, although the title/summary makes it appear as if it were a certainty.