Comparison: Patenting Life by Michael Crichton and Decoding the Use of Gene Patents by John Calfee

It is growing at a fast pace, becoming a huge part of how people live. Yet, the government will have little say in how people use the technology, as it is up to the parents and the doctors giving the treatment. People have free will, and in the US, people will do whatever they can do to make sure the government does not take complete control over them. Even if the government tries to force control over genetics, there is no way it will gain full control, as in the end, it is the parent’s

I really enjoyed your post as I did not know it was possible to patent a gene. I really liked the examples you gave as it helped me understand what it means for a gene to be patent and what it affects it can have on the patient and their family. I believe this is something that should not be legal as if someone else can find a cure for diseases instead of the organization who owns it they should be allowed to do so.

Calfee on the other hand explains the opposite view from Crichton. Calfee thinks that human genes are able to be patented without relying on nature. “You have to isolate and purify the gene segment in a way that does not occur in nature, and you have to establish some sort of concrete use”utility”is the standard word to satisfy PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) standards.” (444). Which is a good explanation on how they would be able to patent another gene. Along with that, Calfee goes into giving more information using a scenario about what is something called “patent thicket”. “In which research is hemmed in by the possibility of bumping into all sorts of patents, such as those the researcher never knew existed.”

Patent Genes have been the center of a attention for a very long time. When we take the time to stop and think about how research and medical cost affect our lifestyles, it is very alarming to know that even the natural occurrences in life can be bought for the right price. In the op-ed piece and article, “Patenting Life” and “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents”, by Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee, both authors draw attention to the uses of patenting genes. Crichton goes on to say how gene patents have interfered with medical testings, research studies, and the miscommunications between doctors and their patients, while Calfee reiterates how patients and researchers are getting the benefits that come from patenting genes. Although both authors

“One-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned” according to an author Michael Crichton. Can you imagine a corporate company owning your genes in your body? It’s called gene patenting and its real. Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee discuss gene patent. Although the authors agree that medical test are expensive due gene patenting, the authors have different views about nature patenting and medical advancement.

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

The Dr.’s view on gene patents is the halt they put on testing and studying of genes and current studies to find a major breakthrough for the disease. (441) It is not only fair to the researchers who spend their lives trying to develop a cure but also to the loved ones and

Early on in this section, Kass answers the question by stating that, “when technology is fully developed it will wield two powers not shared by ordinary medical practices” (page 121). That is what makes genetic technology different. Kass goes on to point out that the two main reasons why genetic technology is different is because it deliberately makes alterations that are transmissible into subsequent generations and it may hold the power to create new human capacities (para. 121). Genetic technology is different because of what it can do and special because of what we can do to limit it. Kass refers to this as a paradox as he states, “we are powerless to establish, on the basis of that difference, clear limits to its use” (page 124).

In result, we as the human race will suffer by not being able to advance our medical research. Crichton also mentions that all the other countries out there do not allow for anyone to patent genes and they have some of the best gene testing anyone can have.Which means Dr.’s can detect deadly diseases earlier and even prevent them from happening,because they now know what causes the mutation that causes the disease. Because when different labs can do “more testing more mutations can be discovered which lead to higher-quality tests.”(442). Where most economists approve of the gene patenting because they just see the “dollar signs” that they can put on the testing,the owners can basically charge whatever they want for the testing, and no one can make a similar test because they own that testing. To me its all bout the money for them, the more expensive they can make it the better for them it just means more money. Calfee does support the patenting of genes and the prices for them he thinks it's a “ pricing power as a tool to foster innovations.”(444).

Competition amongst researchers intensified and instead of collaborating with each other, they kept their research restricted, in hopes of striking it rich someday. As an example, there are currently 4,875 U.S. patents for Lyme disease in comparison to 808 for Parkinson’s disease, or 2,148 for Alzheimer 's disease. (Due to the similarity in symptoms, and the unknown cause of both Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease, some believe it is really just Lyme disease.) Nevertheless, with all the interest in a “hard to catch and easy to cure” disease like Lyme, the number of patents cannot be ignored; patents equal money.

A man by the name of John Locke once said “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” These wise words may still and eternally be applied to our law system as a basis for our human rights and improvement. As of relatively recent times these basic political ideals have been challenged through the arise of genetic patents. These patents have stripped researchers from their ability to further investigate certain, often vital, sections of DNA. Additionally, these patents have placed many small family owned farms at a particular disposition. Companies such as Myriad Genetics and Monsanto are challenging our freedom, and rights to own property.

Crichton believes the PTO misinterpreted rulings by the United States Supreme Court and started issuing gene patents erroneously, Crichton directly blames the PTO for high prices on test set by the gene patent owners and states “This bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency”(441). On the other hand, Calfee informs us that “human genes can be patented, but not simply by decoding a snippet of DNA and sending a sequence of the letters A, G, C, and T to the PTO” (444). Calfee clarifies that a gene has to be isolated in a way that does not occur in nature and by finding a “concrete use-utility” (444) in order to meet the standards of the PTO. Both Crichton and Calfee disagree on the function of the PTO, while Crichton believes it is directly responsible for high prices set by the gene patent owners, while Calfee believes the PTO correctly awarded gene patents by following their standards and by owners having concrete use for the

However, since June 2013, gene patenting is no longer recognized in the United States. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has held that genes, even isolated in the laboratory, are in fact creations of nature and therefore unpatentable. To be considered patentable, the gene should also have been modified in the laboratory. This decision was made in response to a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, which holds patents on the genes that determine predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer; The BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes” (Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad (13 June

If researchers and institutions have complete control over cells once extracted, then research and understanding of medicine, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and genetic markers can significantly advance. Currently, courts have favored this course of action, as demonstrated in Moore v. Regents of the University of California. Additionally, there are no property rights in corpuses (Yang, Y et al 2011). This advocates for the continuation for the asymmetrical power given towards researchers and large biotech companies. This would benefit researchers, large research institutions and their contributors, and pharmaceutical companies while discriminating the patient’s right to know what occurs to their genetic information, the most personal aspect that makes them human. The consequence

Intellectual property needs to be protected. However, it is possible to go too far in protecting it. There is also the question of ethics. For example, the patenting of higher life forms, to lots of people, is not ethical. A recent case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics raises the question of taking a patent too far and whether or not it is ethical to do so.