{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028469750889679714, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.698412698412699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From patent law to regulation: the ontological gerrymandering of biotechnology

Biotechnology is (ontologically speaking) many things. US patent law's understanding of ‘the natural’ has shrunk over the decades to allow the patenting of artefacts – such as organisms, cell lines, chemical compounds, and cDNA – that would previously have been unpatentable. However, when attempting to garner public support or minimise regulatory hurdles, proponents of biotechnology emphasise how these artefacts are no different from their un-engineered counterparts – that they are, in a word, natural. Some political implications of this ontological gerrymandering are discussed by focusing on instances of resistance, where previously hidden assemblages and networks (which proponents of biotechnology do not want the public to see) are being made visible.