Deadly Diseases By John E. Calfee

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”.

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.

9). Michael Crichton has many good points in his paper, but the fact that the argument uses bias word choice and does not give positives and negatives shows that the argument has fundamental flaws. Crichton needs to state facts and real life situations, while depicting positives on both sides of the issue. Crichton needs to be more open to gene patenting when writing his essay.

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.

Throughout Sherwin B. Nuland’s book The Doctor’s Plague, Nuland discusses the devastating epidemic of childbed fever. One out of six women to give birth in the First Division at the Krankenhaus hospital in Vienna, Austria was to succumb to this supposed mystery illness. Childbed fever was a harrowing complication not only at the Krankenhaus in Vienna, but all over other parts of Europe as well. Nuland takes us through this occasion and draws his attention to Ignac Semmelweis, an assistant physician at Krankenhaus who unearths the real reason behind the incredibly high mortality rate of expectant new to be mothers. Semmelweis traces the origin of this mysterious illness to the delivering doctors and students of the hospital in the First division

According to the author, critic and film producer, Michael Crichton who wrote “Patenting Life.” In his essay, he writes “Our genetic makeup… all life on Earth.” Human genes are nature like animals, trees and leaves are. A company cannot patent them but they have. Crichton states that medical researchers must pay royalty before

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

Myriad Genetics is a biotech company that has a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which exist in all humans. I have no problem with that. Myriad Genetics has done what they reasonably had to in order to compete with other companies. Companies should be able to hold patents on genes because it will fuel the growth of scientific research.

Imagine this you're a scientist about to make a groundbreaking discovery finding the gene to cure HIV but, you get hit with a lawsuit because a gene was previously patented. All research is stopped by law and due to the patent you give up your research and if that is not enough you have to pay over $3,000 in royalties which leads to giving up on the project. “Patenting Life” (2007) writer Michael Crichton,, a well educated man in the medical field earning his degree from Harvard Medical School,, is trying to end yet, on the other hand “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” (2009) John E. Calfee an economist believes Gene Patents are beneficiary and not harmful. Crichton and Calfee disagree in many ways being halt on research, worrying about a

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

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.

believe gene patents should be banned. In this essay, I will outline arguments for and

This researcher found a Canavan gene and developed a genetic test and the researcher’s employer, Miami Children’s Research Hospital, obtained a patent on the gene and began licensing a test to identify Canavan mutations. The families who donated the tissue and three nonprofit organizations sued the researcher and hospital alleging the children’s tissue was used without the consent to license a patent and develop a commercial test. The court found that “the tissue was given voluntarily for research without the expectation of return, therefore the plaintiffs had no ownership interest in the issues, or the research performed using the tissue.” The terms of the patent meant that the genetic test was restricted to whoever could pay for it and the Canavan Foundation was even forced to stop offering free genetic testing. According to one of the parents whose child died from Canavan disease, the litigation “was not about the Canavan families wanting a piece of the pie”; it is about “having a say in how their contributions are used.”

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.

government, in response to pressures from corporations in the United States, is seeking to force all countries to accept U.S.-style patent laws. For example, the government threatened to end science and technology agreements with India, unless the Indian patent laws were extended to cover pharmaceutical and agricultural products. The public is only just realizing the speed and scope of this privatization of biological material. For instance, Monsanto owns a patent covering all genetically engineered cotton, and Duke University has patented genes involved in Alzheimer's disease. Human Genome Sciences has patented the entire genomes of certain bacteria that can cause serious diseases in humans, to gain a monopoly on the development of new antibacterial agents. Myriad Genetics owns patents on the human genes that, when damaged, lead to breast cancer. And Axys Pharmaceuticals has applied for patents on the cells and genes of New Guinea tribes, for their presumed value in the development of certain treatments against viruses to which the tribes may have developed