Gene Patent Controversy

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.

In “Patenting Life,” Michael Crichton argues that the government is mishandling the patenting office with the awarding of patents for human genes. Gene patenting is blocking the advancement of modern medicine and could be costing many patients their lives. The hold on research results in the discovery of fewer cures for modern diseases.

The Declaration of Independence describes individual rights as “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Congress). These inalienable rights are threatened by genetic modification. Specifically, Tony Wang, in his research on the ethics of genetic

Chapter 25 – 1976-1988 – This chapter details the history of patenting living organisms — 1980 Supreme Court ruling which declared that Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty could patent a bacterium genetically engineered to consume oil and to help clean up oil spills.

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.”

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

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 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.

Genetic engineering has been the subject of controversy since it first started. There is a lot of fear and concern surrounding the possibilities it presents. It is difficult to make ethical decisions about genetic engineering because if offers opportunities to solve many genetic problems such as hereditary diseases. The consequences are positive and negative, but there is no way to determine which will have a greater impact. Genetic engineering could lead to new treatments for hereditary diseases, but it could also have long-term adverse effects. Although there are benefits to genetic engineering, the negative side cannot be overlooked.

The patenting issue gained some attention when President Bill Clinton and Prime Minster Tony Blair jointly called for the release of raw genetic data into the public domain (CQ 405). I will argue in this paper that the aggressive competition among biotechnology firms to patent genes is

Gene patenting is giving the sole rights to the inventor of a certain sequence of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or Ribonucleic acid (RNA), which are the mapping of our human code. It has also become a bioethical concern that many people may agree or disagree with gene patents. The major concerns with such controversial topic are the handling of such gene patents by the The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), how owners of patents can charge whatever they want, and how a gene patent can halt research. Michael Crichton (1942-2008) was an author, critic, and film producer. John E. Calfee (1941-2011) was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for sixteen years as well as a staff economist

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

There are compromises that can be reached which will satisfy both the private and public ventures. It is important for this effort to be a unanimous one. The implications of genetic knowledge are too important to fight over. It is in everyone's best interest to act together to prevent abuse of this information in order to create the guarantee of better health care for all humans, indiscriminately.

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