A 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,

There has been a big controversy pertaining to gene patenting ever since the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) began issuing them. While some, like the author of the article in the New York Times, “Patenting Life” Michael Crichton, see gene patents as giving up ownership of one's own ties to “all life on earth” (441) and recognize the disadvantages and restrictions put forth on medical advancement and innovation; others, like economist John E. Calfee author of “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” on the American Enterprise Institute’s online magazine, see the benefits of high prices on test and research studies. Crichton sees gene patents as unnatural, costly and restrictive; Calfee, on the other hand sees it as “a power

Imagine going to the grocery store and seeing a seedless watermelon, but it is not the typical oval, it is square. Down the produce aisle, there are sweet, juicy strawberries; however, there is a warning label that says, “Do not consume if you have a nut allergy.” The world today is moving forward in the way that society produces our wholefoods. Genetic engineering, bioengineering, or biotechnology is the process of inserting the genetics of different plants and organisms into other plants or organisms to create new, more efficient DNA. However, is it truly beneficial to modify the world’s natural foods? The use of genetic engineering can disrupt the ecosystems that have taken billions of years to develop. Many years of research and work have gone into the subject of genetically modified foods; however, this new food trend could create or enhance food related illnesses and health problems, interfere with nature’s environs, and could even cause specific ethical problems for individuals that practice different faith. People should be aware of genetic engineering, how it works, and how it affects their lives.

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

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).

Genetics is a world of unknown limitations. From the small fraction of application seen being explored today, they have yet to even begin exploring its true wonders and comprehend its beauty as an entirety. As of today, animals and plants have been the only beneficiaries of genetic research and experimentation (National Human Genome Research Institute). Such experiments have led to the development of better chances of survival of modified organisms against harsh environments. Pigs and cows are an example of how organisms can be modified to better effect the environment (Moss). Corn is an example of how crops can be adapted for other, previously unsuitable areas such as Africa (Glenn). Animals and plants have greatly benefited from genetic modification and research, but why should they be the only ones to get such great results. Humans should be granted the right to

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.

Companies such as Monsanto should not be able to patent seeds because no one should be able to mess with nature and control it. A seed is still considered a living organism because seeds are a potentially a life form that requires the same elements humans need to survive. No one should be able to patent life but should take credit for it. In article, Monsanto: A profile of Corporate Arrogance studies showed that, “in the 1990s, the Monsanto corporation was feared and reviled as one of the world’s largest chemical companies, and by far the most aggressive promoter of genetic engineering in agriculture” (Brian Tokar 1). In addition, statistic involving a study in 1999 at the University of Georgia showed that “Roundup Ready” soybean plants experienced

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.

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

Scientists have isolated genes that cause particular diseases and modified genes that alter organisms for particular reasons (for example, to help beneficial plants and animals to survive under harsh conditions). Make an argument as to why businesses that develop modified organisms should be able to preserve their property rights by patenting such organisms. Then, make a counterargument as to why such organisms should not be patentable.

Genetically modified organisms are living organisms whose DNA is replicated in order to survive harsh conditions and they are also known as transgenic organisms because it involves the transfer of genes (author pg #). The use of biotechnology and artificial selection develops the way GMOs are created by finding desired traits in different organisms (Phillips 1). Phillips, author of “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DA Technology” includes in her article, “Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are . . . examples . . .that have been subject to genetic engineering” (Phillips 1). The ethics of GMOs is a widely controversial topic that has been discussed ever since

The advancement of technology has lead to many scientists conducting more experiments with gene modification. This has lead to scientists to isolate certain genes that may cause a certain disease, thus modified genes may change the organism in a particular way. It may help farmers with crop cultivation and reduce crop infestation. It may also help farmers to be able to cultivated crops or keep animals that are prawn to drought resistance. Before, I go in details explain the importance of why businesses that develop modified organisms should be able to preserve their property rights by patenting such organisms or why such organism should not be patentable. I would like to briefly explain the history of patenting. For over two hundred years living organisms have been excluded from patent laws; life forms were considered a “product of nature” and not a human invention. “The non-patentable status of living organisms changed with the 1980 landmark Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty,” (W3 Unisa, 2005). The court decided in a narrow 5-4 decision that a strain of bacteria that had been modified by the insertion of new genes was patentable because it was not naturally occurring. The foreign genes gave the bacteria the ability to break down hydrocarbons, and its “inventors” hoped it might be useful for cleaning up oil spills. Historically, patents were initially developed to insure and protect inventors and to make sure that they could benefit