Ethics and the Patentability of Human Genes

Protection of intellectual property are investments based on acquired knowledge, thought and effort by one or multiple individuals on behalf of themselves, the business they work for when the property is created, and a financial investment. Each of these – acquired knowledge, thought, physical effort, financial investment – have a value that can be attached as it relates the usefulness or importance of the resulting product. That value will have a level of importance to the individual(s) creating the product and if applicable, the investor providing the funds in support of the creation.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides the federal government with the power to issue patents and copyrights in order “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8). A patent provides the inventor with an exclusive right to “use, license or sell and invention,” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8), as such the product, service, process or design becomes the personal property of the inventor(s).

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

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.

For instance, the testing for breast cancer used to only be one thousand dollars and now the owner of the gene patent to breast cancer has now almost double price to three thousand dollars, stated in Crichton’s piece. Therefore, not a lot of people can afford to pay that huge amount of money. Because of this issue, Calfee mentions that a cancer patient filed a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, “a biotech firm that owns a patent to a diagnostic test for breast cancer.”(443). So if you want to take the test to see if you have the breast cancer gene the only place you can get the testing is at their property in Utah. “Myriad does not only own the patent for the test but for the genes themselves.”(443). Since the first lawsuit was filed, there has been six others that have been filed as well but they have all been either dismissed or settled out of court. So not only do you have to pay the three thousand dollars for the test, you now have to pay for the travel and stay in

What if a company could privately own something that naturally occurred in a body. Not some foreign object put into someone, but something that's part of their DNA. Now what if they had a deadly disease and were not allowed to donate their tissue for research because a company owned that specific disease gene. A Harvard graduate, Michael Crichton, who wrote “Patenting Life” and American Enterprise Institute scholar, John E. Calfee, who wrote “Decoding The Use Of Gene Patents”, argue the pros and cons of gene patenting. Crichton and Calfee disagree on the major key points on gene patenting.

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.

Crichton states “a test for a breast cancer would be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000” (442). Crichton also explains to us the reason why the owners maintain such high prices by asking, “couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test” (441). On the other hand Calfee informs us that a lot of patents are not just owned by private firms but also by universities, which is the case with the BRCA test for breast cancer the gene patent is owned by Myriad and is also co-owned by the University of Utah who set the prices of such tests. Calfee supports the prices set by owners and co-owners of gene patents which gives them a monopoly in which they can compete with competitors prices. Calfee reassures his position by stating “like most economists I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation (444). It is clear that both Crichton and Calfee disagree when it comes to patent holders setting their own prices. Crichton complaints on behalf of the patients and the tests that are extremely costly; while Calfee as an economist, agrees with the patent owner's setting their own

The World Intellectual Property Organization (n.d.) helps one understand the importance of protecting intellectual property. They have spelled out several reasons of this importance including inventing new works in technology and culture, which allows progress to be made that, can be utilized worldwide. In addition, the legal protection of intellectual property encourages the commitment of additional resources for further modernization. Finally, promoting and protecting intellectual property encourages economic growth. It creates new jobs and industries. Protecting intellectual property also enhances the quality and

Intellectual property represents ideas created by minds of humans that require certain rights for their use. Intellectual property gives companies a competitive advantage and attracts the attention of other business partners and investors (Lee, 2016). With such importance, it is necessary for the law to protect these ideas from being used by unauthorized individuals. To shield from this, trade secrets, patents, and copyrights are used to protect the ownership of intellectual property (Legal Information Institute).

If man could prevent his child from having Tay Sachs Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome and other life threatening genetic disorders, should he be able to? Using human genetic engineering, scientists have developed the skills and techniques to do just this. Human genetic engineering, however, is fairly new in the science world and many questions and unresolved problems still remain. This technology is the center of many arguments in the science world when debating the ethical standpoint (Cyranoski). Both sides have their arguments; however, the pros will far out weigh the cons when the technology is perfected and used under strict rules and regulations. Human genetic engineering is one of the most controversial topics in the field of science that has the potential to improve the human species for the better as a whole, and I support the use of this technology.

Therefore, IP is a critical piece of our country’s economic development, social and cultural welfare. Enforcement of these protections are relied upon in many industries, scientists and not to mention, many artists. It helps to foster competition, betterment, creativity and innovation. In addition, the American consumer benefits as IP ensures they are purchasing products that are safe and effective. Given these points, there is no doubt that IP rights must be protected in order for the U.S. to continue to be productive.

Without intellectual property laws, there would be no incentive to create new innovations since it would be assumed that it was only a matter of time before someone came and took it away from you and made it their own.

There must be a balance between the developer of the intellectual property and the interest of the public. Intellectual property is already a big business among companies. Expanding the monopolies has the effect of allowing companies to negotiate and cross-licensing technology. Microsoft, as recently reported on the Wall Street Journal, is looking to expand the licensing of its technologies, after successfully licensing some video decoders to open source groups.

How important is an intellectual property right (IPR)? IPR protects the creator or inventor’s benefits, so that it stimulates the interest of innovation. According to United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the number of patent application has been increased over 450% from 1980 to 2010. It shows that people now are more concern about copyright issues. Although owners have the patent application, the violating of copyrights and patents are still happening all over the world.