A Research Study On Patenting Genes Of Organism

“Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful, and most noble employment of man,” George Washington. Agriculture has been around for 12,000, this changed the lifestyle of people from hunting and gathering to permanent settlements with a steady food source (“Development of Agriculture”). From this, civilizations and cities grew, food could now be grown to meet the demands of the ever growing global populations. Since the development of agriculture advancement has been made to feed the population. One of the many modern advancements has been genetically modified organisms. Genetically Modified Organism, is the results of a laboratory process, where genes from the DNA of one of the species are extracted, and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. Some of the unanswered questions about GMO’s have been what they are, companies that are involved,

In this unit, the two periods of biology studied and learned more about GMO’s. We looked into things such as breeding and eugenics and how exactly it relates to the overall action of genetically modifying organisms. A genetically modified organism is the result of a gene from one organism, purposefully being changed to improve another organism. According to americanradioworks, organisms were being manipulated dating all the way back to prehistoric times to the 1900s. Farmers and naturalists began to notice “hybrid” plants, being produced through natural breeding. In 1900, European plant scientist began using Gregor Mendel's genetic theory to manipulate plants to produce a more desirable outcome. This means that Organisms have been getting genetically modified for years. Although the event of this action dates back for years, controversies are still shared in classrooms and homes, about whether GMOs are a necessary part of today’s life.

Gene Patents seem to have a big impact on many people just like everything else going on around us. Many agree and others disagree on the fact that gene patents are owned. Michael Crichton explains how gene patents have an impact on people medically contrasting but also comparing to John E. Calfee who explains his view on gene patents economically. The Doctor and the Economist approach the topic on gene patents by acknowledging the subject, rights, and the costs.

Were you aware that the minute we are conceived, somebody out there might already own a little piece of you? I was not aware of this issue either, I was really shocked to read that at least “one-fifth of our genes are privately owned.”(440). In these two articles, the authors Michael Crichton and John Calfee both discuss the issue of gene patents in their articles,” Patenting Life”: New York Times, and “ Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” :The American Magazine. They both agreed that genes should not be able to be patented. Crichton claims, in his article, that there should not be any type of gene patent; That it will basically slow down our testing for certain diseases. However, Calfee states in his article that if someone who attempts to patent

What if a company could privately own something that naturally occurred in a body. Not some foreign object put into someone, but something that's part of their DNA. Now what if they had a deadly disease and were not allowed to donate their tissue for research because a company owned that specific disease gene. A Harvard graduate, Michael Crichton, who wrote “Patenting Life” and American Enterprise Institute scholar, John E. Calfee, who wrote “Decoding The Use Of Gene Patents”, argue the pros and cons of gene patenting. Crichton and Calfee disagree on the major key points on gene patenting.

Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee explain the factors and outcomes that have come from gene patents. While Crichton is against these patents, suggesting that patents are a barrier to research and increase the cost of medical expenses, Calfee refutes these ideas; furthermore, the authors disagree as to whether genes meet the criteria for a patent to begin with (Crichton, paras. 1-13) (Calfee, paras. 1-6).

A genetically modified organism, GMO, has been altered by genetic engineering techniques. GMOs are widely used by scientists in many different ways to include the production of food and in research.8 Zebrafish genetically modified to be a fluorescent bright red, green and orange have been available for purchase as pets in 49 states in the United States since 2003.8 However, these patented GloFish are banned in California. The California Fish and Game Commission decided the fish were the result of a “trivial use for a powerful technology.”7 The Commission’s belief that the fish should not have been created led to a law making the GloFish illegal. Originally GloFish were developed by scientists in Singapore to be living pollution sensors as they would only glow when in the presence of pollutants.7 The Commission’s ban on GloFish highlights the controversy over genetically modified organisms and how public opinion can be swayed by the beliefs of others whether those beliefs are based on science or not. This paper will focus first on what genetic modification means and then will look at the pros and cons of genetically modified foods. Finally, the author’s opinion of the issue of GMO food will conclude the paper.

According to the First Patent Act passes in 1790, a patentable invention or discovery must be artificial, non-obvious, novel and useful. Current gene patents, refer to DNA sequences with a known function or use that are altered in some way from their form inside a cell.( Ricki Lewis (1997) So patented gene is different from its intracellular counterpart in that it is no longer part of a chromosome. When something was isolated from its original natural state, it’s no longer a natural product, something artificial is created. The isolated gene sequence is not nature anymore. Also, DNA sequence can be the protein –encoding portion of gene, gene on chromosomes, and patentable genes do not necessary come from human. For these reasons, I think the researchers or Biotechnology Company may patent DNA. Some argument about “gene patent” include potentially limited access, no second opinion opportunities, no price competition and less incentive to improve the gene test. (David H. Ledbetter (2008) These investigators are concerning about the accuracy and affordability of gene test.

In June 2000, the publicly funded Human Genome Project (HGP) and the private firm Celera Genomics Inc. announced that they had completed sequencing the human genome. This unprecedented accomplishment is expected to enable doctors to diagnose, treat and even prevent numerous genetic diseases. As these two entities worked on sequencing the human genome, there was also a separate and less publicized race to patent as many human genes as possible.

Gene patenting is giving the sole rights to the inventor of a certain sequence of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or Ribonucleic acid (RNA), which are the mapping of our human code. It has also become a bioethical concern that many people may agree or disagree with gene patents. The major concerns with such controversial topic are the handling of such gene patents by the The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), how owners of patents can charge whatever they want, and how a gene patent can halt research. Michael Crichton (1942-2008) was an author, critic, and film producer. John E. Calfee (1941-2011) was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for sixteen years as well as a staff economist

inventor the right to rent, hire, or sell his invention. In the science community gene

In a life of technological advancement, human beings are faced with many ethical issues regarding the natural world. People have become capable of scientifically manipulating genes to create organisms that nature never intended to exist. Although scientists have the technology at their disposal, it begs the questions: Is it ethical to change living organisms to better satisfy our own needs? Do scientists know enough about the process of genetic engineering and the long-term effects of genetically altering a food supply, to determine if it is safe and environmentally sound? Many companies have made large profits on genetically altered produce. Tomatoes are bigger and corn is more golden. Consumers are happier. The government does not require that companies label their genetically engineered products. However, through regulation and knowledge, the government could be a crucial ethical force in controlling the impact of genetic engineering on industry and society.

An early act passed in the United States was the 1952 Patent Act that stated cultivated hybrids or newly found seeds were patentable (“Food, Inc. Movie …” par. 3). In 1974, the Asilomar Conference in California concluded that “the potential for recombinant DNA to make significant contributions to developments in medicine, agriculture, and industry was well appreciated,” but individuals debated concerns relating to human health (Dubock par. 1). The conference prefaced the debate, and today, countries regulate GM crops according to a nation by nation basis. The country’s review of GM crops involves seeking potential allergies and comparing them to existing crops (Dubock par. 6). In the United States, several GM crops have been approved. However, legislation on labeling GMOs began in 2016 with legislation S.764, which blocked states from issuing mandatory labeling laws and exempted some GM products from labeling (Lugo par.

One of the important positive effects of patenting genes is that they lead to advancement in medical research. There are many reasons why companies should patent genes. By patenting genes companies will be motivated to continue their research for new DNA sequences which means that new treatments and new vaccines will be created. Therefore, it also creates a competition between biotech companies and medical centers. Patenting genes develops a private industry in the medical field. The scientist that discovered specific types of genes could protect their rights. The private industry would increase medical research since their findings would be protected. Private companies would create a huge profit from the patented genes. It will later lead to great advancement in the medical field because companies can use their profits toward

There are no conclusive evidence that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful or have done harm to humans. There is no proof of Genetically Modified Organisms causing allergies in humans. The safety of Genetically Modified Organisms are not fully determined, more study is needed to be positive. The FDA does not get all data to perform a very safe review. Plenty of scientists feel that Genetically Modified Organisms safety has not yet been established. An ominous sign is that in Washington State University found out that weeds are developing resistance is at an all time high up by twenty five percent,with increasing weed killer usage water can become contaminated. Genetically Modified Organisms have to be marked in 64 countries not including the US (Harrar).