Crichton Vs Calfee Analysis

We cannot obtain a “Yes” or “No” answer on “Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect the amount of research that is conducted to find naturally occurring disease-causing DNA sequences”. It is because the statue is clearly stated that things that are created or invented can be applied to obtain a patent when those things are (1) novel, (2) useful, and (3) nonobvious (Cheeseman, 2015, P.135). Although discovering the disease-causing DNA sequences cannot be patented, the medicine or drug formulation on curing based on the related research can apply for a patent because it is an “invention”.

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

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.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

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.

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.”

One of Crichton's fears of Gene Patents is it becoming a monopoly and after further reading you'll wish it was the board game, for instance Crichton states “And they raise the costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1000 now cost $3000.” (2007) the owner has the power to raise the price to whatever he/she fits leaving some patients for dead literally. But wait couldn't somebody just make a cheaper more affordable you say? Well according to Crichton “the patent blocks any competitor's test.” this frustrates all researchers. Gene Patents supporters argue the cost to be “a tempest in a teapot” Crichton further explains it’s simply not true explaining how millions are paid towards Hepatitis research causing researchers to choose something else to work on. Calfee has been a staff economist for 16 years and manager in the Bureau of Economics at the Federal Trade Commission also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute which means Calfee is all about the money. To point out the importance of money to Calfee he states “and like most economist I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation.” while Crichton is all for saving money Calfee wants pricing

The world we live in is advancing more and more every day. We are beginning to exceed boundaries and reach new limits. Science and Technology has come a long way since Copernicus said that the sun was the center of the universe. Science fiction is slowly coming to life. We are building robots that are extremely similar to humans, modifying genes, and creating clones. Authors wrote about these abstract ideas not too long ago, but at the time they seemed far-fetched. Scientific and technological advancement may be for good or for evil. The good side is the advancements in medicine that could limit the risk of a particular disease or even cure one. The potentially bad side is the steps we may take to get there without knowing the long-term effect. In Michael Bess’s article “Blurring the Boundary Between Person and Product,” he discusses the advancement of genetic

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

Gene therapy is defined as the medical replacement of defective genes in living human cells; its aim is to replace the activity of a defective gene by activating a dormant gene which has a similar function (Wheale & McNally, 212). Under gene therapy comes the politically controversial Human Genome Project, a fifteen-year, $3 billion federally-funded biology program. The goal of the project is to isolate the defective gene on the chromosomes which comprise the human genome (Fletcher, 2). In this manner, the Human Genome Project may be able to rid the cancer-ridden genes from human DNA, thereby curing cancer permanently. The project has been the focus of much scientific and political controversy over the past few years for its possible ramifications are extensive to all of human existence.

Ideally a patent is not supposed to give monopoly over an idea to an inventor unless the idea is useful to the public. Thus, a gene should be shown to be capable of being useful to the public in the form of new products or treatment, before anyone should be able to patent it.

genetic testing, everything has changed. She notes that clinicians now have the ability to diagnose, treat, and monitor a patient’s illnesses or disease progression in an entirely different manner. This is a far cry from the old medical model of responding to a disease (or defect) only after it appears, and then prescribing the recommended medication or intervention. These genetic medical advances sound miraculous and promising, but the ability to test, screen and provide early intervention does not come without many major ethical dilemmas.

This would mean that this testing would be more affordable for the commoner. Once testing has been completed and data interpreted, someone will know if they are a carrier for a genetic disorder. If it turns out that they are, instead of waiting for symptoms to arise, genetic treatment of the disease can be done to save the person’s life before it is even in jeopardy. This could prove to be very helpful. People spend thousands of dollars on treatments for a genetic disorder, and the treatments do not even fully rid the patient of the disease. The patient will have to take the medication for the rest of their life to calm the symptoms of that disease. With the advancement of gene therapy, a patient could receive a minimal number of treatments which will not just calm the symptoms but rid the patient of their genetic disorder completely. This, in the long run, could save the patient time, money, suffering, and ultimately it will save their life. This is only the beginning. As time passes, doctors will have the knowledge to save many more lives in the same manner.

That same year, congress also amended patent regulations to allow the commercialization of products developed through government-sponsored research (Skloot 210). Patents slow medical advancements because it makes tissue more about ‘ownership’ than progress. ‘Tissue profiteering’ has replaced the greater good. A 2005 study published in Science estimated that some twenty percent of all human genes had already been patented and of those, sixty-three percent were by private firms (Darnovsky, Reynolds). Despite being encouraged by the biotechnology industry, researchers are at risk of violating patent laws because U.S. patent applications remain confidential for the first eighteen months after filing (Darnovsky, Reynolds). One notion is to give property rights to people so they ‘own’ their tissues, and therefore uninvited removal of such tissue by a third party would be considered trespassing or theft (Charo). However, universities claim that property rights in removed tissues would complicate the research process by reducing their ability to use stored tissues effectively (Charo).