Biological Patents And Their Associated Exploitation

Clearly, these researchers had their own agenda to acquire a medical breakthrough that would change the history of science and contribute to the greater good of society. However, their authority was used in an unwarranted manner to accomplish their goals, regardless of their respectable intentions in wanting to make medical progress. In reviewing these researchers and medical practitioners’ actions during the 1950’s which entails series of unethical behaviors and violation of human right, it develops an essential need to establish guidelines in the attempt to protect patient’s rights and privacy. Furthermore, due to the alternatives that arise throughout this case, there are many possible outcomes to be considered that could have a significant impact on stakeholders if these courses of action are fallowed. These solutions consequences may involve the tentative research, an advance way of life for the Lack’s family, political turmoil, economic health impact and a society whose cells may have similar experience.

To balance these competing interests, Harvard agreed to receive an equity stake in the company, and Syndexa would pay Harvard a small up-front fee to license the patents that Hotamisligil had developed. For Syndexa one of the key parts of negotiations was centered on the research that the start-up intended to fund in Hotamisligil’s lab at Harvard. Harvard had major concerns with how the Syndexa-sponsored research will be separated from the other funds (government- or foundation-funded projects) that Hotamisligil receives. Harvard cannot funnel federally funded inventions to companies, however at the same time Syndexa was looking for assurance that they would have first crack at intellectual property for a technology that they funded. Another major issue extending negotiations was the conditions under which Syndexa would make royalty payments to Harvard for products that were not covered under Harvard patents, but discovered using Harvard technologies. To ensure that Harvard would receive a reasonable return on the patents it was licensing, Syndexa agreed to pay a small royalty rate if they developed a new therapeutic cure for diabetes using its Harvard license. Both parties agreed to the concept of an ‘identified product’, essentially a drug discovered through the use of patents, targets and assays being licensed from Harvard. Negotiations over what constituted an ‘identified product’ continued through the rest

Researches claim that they must have unlimited access to animals for experiments in order to find cures for human diseases, which in some cases cures have been found as a result. However, the ironic

John Moore lost the lawsuit against David Golde, according to the judge he had no right “to ownership interest in the patent - he was not one of the inventors. Nor, it concluded, could a patient exercise property rights over discarded body tissues.” (von der Ropp & Taubman, 2006). The loss of the lawsuit by Moore caused a lot of media attention and again a big ethical discussion in science. As previously said, this story also highlighted the importance of ethical and ownership laws in medical research.

Michael Crichton makes a good point when talking about the examples given. The situation dealing with Canavan disease and the Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute is a good example of how gene patenting can block the general population from enjoying a medical advancement. Another example is when Crichton states, “When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it because of patent concerns” (442 par. 12). Gene patenting has a fundamental flaw in it because it is slowing the advancement of modern medicine. Gene patenting blocks researchers from looking into genes that companies own and demands royalties every time the patent is in use. This is a problem that the United States needs to address so that patients can enjoy all the medical advancements that are in reach for the future.

Cell larceny, theft by non-disclosure. Doctors, often without patient knowledge, use patient’s cells to advance scientific studies and make profit. Doctors accumulate enormous profit stealing cells. Cases such as Henrietta Lacks and John Moore highlight the injustices caused by intentional misuse of cells. In contrast, Ted Slavin’s case exemplifies the beneficial outcome that is achieved when a patient and doctor work together to achieve a common goal. Doctors should be required to notify and obtain permission to use patient samples for research other than its original purpose, and the patient or their family should have control over who uses the samples to ensure proper usage and benefits of all involved parties.

OWNERSHIP OF CELLS RAISES STICKY ISSUES … WHO SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS TO A PATIENT’S CELLS? … WHO TOLD YOU YOU COULD SELL MY SPLEEN? (Skloot, Rebecca Scientists, lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers debated the issues: some called for legislation that would make it illegal for doctors to take patients’ cells or commercialize them without consent and the disclosure of potential profits; others argued that doing so would create a logistical nightmare that would put an end to medical progress.(Skloot, Rebecca (2010-01-28). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (p. 204). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle

Innovations and scientific advances in the 20th century brought about further knowledge of genes and genetics, and later of how diseases interact with human cells. This level of scientific progress was unprecedented, and the medical and biological ethics going along with the science needed time to catch up. From the 1950s with the collection of HeLa cells to the early 2000s with Dr. Catalona, there has been debate over who owns tissue samples taken from human beings. This paper presents an argument for a limited ownership of tissue samples.

Imagine one day you found out that a culture of your cells, a physical piece of you, played a vital role in the development of the polio vaccine, and assisted in gene cloning, gene mapping, in vitro fertilization and many other advances in the science and medical fields? How would you feel? Proud? Useful? Now, what if you learned that the culture of your cells was taken without your knowledge in the first place? Does this change your feelings? Maybe now you feel anger instead. But wait, here is the kicker: you learn that not only were your cells taken and used without your consent but they are making someone else a fortune; millions and millions of dollars. Meanwhile your family cannot

When Dr. Jenner introduced the smallpox vaccine he was met with as much condemnation as he was with praise, “ministers thundered against tampering with the Lord’s grand design. The economist Thomas Malthus worried that vaccines would lead to dangerous population increases” (Oshinsky). After all the years, the arguments against Dr. Jenner’s work have become obsolete yet the crusade against vaccines still wages on wielding new arguments. The recent revival of the anti-vaccination movement came about during 1990s, “the movement…had less to do with fears of personal liberties being deprived than with claims of a link between vaccines and various afflictions, especially autism. It hardly mattered that study after study would refute this junk science” (Oshinsky). This controversy holds elements of morality, politics and ethical issues, but is not limited to those arguments. Elements of the destruction of personal liberties

I believe that if a company has a patent seed with a particular gene that shows up in a farmer’s crop should not be able to own that crop. There could be many different reasons why a particular gene shows up in a farmer’s crop. Many of which could not be there fault. For example, Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto for growing one of Monsanto’s seeds. But Percy never bought any seeds from Monsanto. As you can see Monsanto’s seeds must have blown into Percy’s field by accident and started growing. Furthermore, no it’s not a farmers fault that they have someone else’s patent gene in their crops so they shouldn’t have to have their crops taken away.

The main objective of the massive corporations is to interfere “with the building blocks of life” (57) to ultimately “take all (the citizens’) money” (56) such as growing “foolproof human-tissues organs in a transgenic knockout pig host” (22) to be available when medical emergencies occur or when a human needs a new organ at anytime. The corporations control the perception of how they were changing human life for the better. By highlighting the benefits of their experiments, the general public could see no harm being done. However, the corporations hide a darker side to their business practices.

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.

Transgenic animals have been tools of research for years. Some contest its ethical standing by arguing that the manipulation of animals for human benefit violates animal rights, treating them as property rather than living beings. As BBC news discusses, the patents placed on these newly created beings reinforces the concept of animals as property (BBC 2014). By treating transgenic animals as property, we inherently establish that not only do they not deserve rights equal or even similar to that of a human, but they are demeaned, maintaining minimal rights as were the different organisms from which the new one was created. In the event that a genetically modified creature maintains an intelligence equal to or even beyond that of a human, any attempt to use logic to reason the lower rights goes out the window. The dilemma then becomes how do we decide how much rights transgenic creations deserve. ADD MORE ABOUT OTHER ETHICAL DILEMMAS POSED. However, the bigger voices in the community have decided that their benefit to humanity outweighs any potential ethical dilemma, including the potential health risks posed to humans by the medical tools produced through transgenic organisms. Genetically engineered animals help generate nutritional supplements, create human transplantable organs, and assist with human gene therapy. Thus, in the context of medicine, genetically engineered animals are frequently (but not always) regarded as

Jonas salk invented the IPV vaccine. He was born October 28, 1914 to Russian parents. His parents had no education but wanted him to be successful so they encouraged him to work hard. “In 1939 he received a Medical Degree from New York University College of Medicine. In 1942 he joined one of his professors at the University of Michigan School of Public Health” (Petersen, Jennifer B). Jonas and his professor developed vaccine for influenza, which was Salk’s first invention. Then he traveled to Pittsburgh and became a Professor. There, he also became head of the virus research lab. He worked on a vaccine there. He used the killed virus to prevent people from contracting it. On July 2, 1952 he vaccinated 42 children who did not have polio and his trials succeeded. On April 12, 1955 Salk vaccinate 1.8 million children and right after he announced that his trial were effective and that the vaccine works (Petersen, Jennifer B).