Gene Patent Argumentative Essay

   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

It is patients’ right to opt for genetic testing on their own DNA, although they are accepting a great risk by doing so.

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.”

Both authors majorly disagree that the cost of patent genes affects patient care simply because money is consatntly an issue in our world. Crichton extends the fact that the cost is high due to the monopolies and gene owners decided to compete with the monopoly prices, and because very rare or higher morality rating genes tend to receive plenty of attention from numerous researchers and university studies. He goes on to say “... many researchers choose to study something less expensive… the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study this disease.” (Crichton 442). Moreover, the cost and the researchers choosings go hand in hand with expense and time-consuming. Calfee, in fact, goes on to say that the pricing would not matter as much, due to the numerous testings that would need to be done, and if you set a low price for a certain genome, it will cause a massive disruption in the finalized conclusions due to all the different mutations and research findings. He backs up his conclusions with the “patent thicket”: “ … that single seller can restrict how a diagnostic is used in addition to how it is priced… research is hemmed by the possibility of bumping into all sorts of patents… patent infringement suits could ensue with their legendary costs and delay… patent tools could forestall this problem but that would be costly too…”

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

Rebecca Skloot writes about this issue on page 324 of her book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. “Myriad has been accused of creating a monopoly, since no one else can offer the test, and researchers can’t develop cheaper tests or new therapies without getting permission from Myriad and paying steep licensing fees.” Here, Skloot is accusing Myriad Genetics of having absolute power over the trade and supply of the genes. On the one hand, I agree with Skloot that Myriad has a monopoly. But on the other hand, I insist that a monopoly is not all bad. Myriad’s control over genes will, in effect, develop scientific treatments.

There 's at least one person we all know who maybe have a deadly disease and may not be receiving the treatment they desperately need. Michael Crichton a film producer, critic and author of “Patenting Life,” earned his degree from Harvard Medical School, and author John E. Calfee a resident scholar of American Enterprise Institution and economist author of “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” both share their views on gene patents. Crichton and Calfee share similarities on the research itself, but do not share the same ideas on whether or not gene patents put a halt on research, and paying a royalty to study the gene.

(Glenn, Linda MacDonald, Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics) There are many social and fundamental issues about genetically engineering organisms. The genetic modifyification of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, possesses degrees of intelligence or sentience never before tested. Instead of seeing the ‘subject’ of the experiment as a person or animal, they strip them of their rights and think of them as objects. Professor Nemur and Doctor Strauss did not care what happened to Charlie, as long as he provided the information and data they needed to make money and achieve fame. Social and legal controls should be placed on research like this. Who has the right to access these technologies and how will scarce resources (such as medical advances and novel treatments) be given out to experiment

There are many reasons for the scientific community as well as the citizens of America to be concerned and very opposed to the patenting of genes. For example, on the American Medical Association Website it reads that “ The AMA is opposed to gene patenting because it has the potential to inhibit access to genetic testing for patients and hinder research on genetic disease.” Another problem is that often enough people are harmed when patent holders prevent laboratories from developing and offering competing tests. As a matter of fact, there are occasions in which people are left falsely diagnosed due to limited testing, occurrences lacey refers to as “false negatives” and “false positives”; a false negative being a situation in which medical tests come back negative due to errors in testing, and false positives being situations in which major often dangerous unnecessary procedures are done due to errors in

Consider questions you’ve previously asked yourself. Have you ever asked yourself “Who owns genes?” Probably not. And if you have, you’ve probably assumed that you own your own genes, right? Well that’s not always the case. According to Meredith Knight from the Genetic Literacy Project, “A biopsy sample taken from a Canadian woman, Snezana Piljak, seeking treatment for colon cancer was deemed the personal property of the hospital that performed the biopsy, not the woman herself, making it the first Canadian ruling about who owns tissue samples. The woman died and her estate sued her physicians for not diagnosing the disease earlier. Those physicians then sued the hospital that had taken the biopsy for not sharing the tissue sample” (Knight).  So there’s a question of ownership at hand.

The patenting race takes advantage of the same computer technology that made the sequencing possible. Companies seeking patents have been using automated DNA-sequencing machines to identify genes easily and cheaply. At the time when they file for the patents,

This weeks discussion seems to be disheartening with respect to our legal system and allowing patents such as these to even be allowed. Like you said, everyone that wants to do research to find a cure for breast or colon cancer should be allowed. Do you think that Myriad Genetics just wants recognition for the discovery, if it happens, or is it all about money? I feel it is all about money. A man had his cancerous spleen removed at the University of California. In turn the University removed the cells from his spleen and found that they could be used to produce valuable proteins. They got a patent on these cells. The man then wanted his cells returned and the California Supreme Court denied him rights and royalties to his cells because

This is how Wikipedia explains what a biological patent is. What is doesn’t say is that when this refers to a gene, this actually came from a living organism and was created by nature (God from the beginning), yet when is patented, it becomes a human invention. What an irony!