Gene Patent Persuasive Essay

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

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.

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.

In June 2000, the publicly funded Human Genome Project (HGP) and the private firm Celera Genomics Inc. announced that they had completed sequencing the human genome. This unprecedented accomplishment is expected to enable doctors to diagnose, treat and even prevent numerous genetic diseases. As these two entities worked on sequencing the human genome, there was also a separate and less publicized race to patent as many human genes as possible.

Patent Genes have been the center of a attention for a very long time. When we take the time to stop and think about how research and medical cost affect our lifestyles, it is very alarming to know that even the natural occurrences in life can be bought for the right price. In the op-ed piece and article, “Patenting Life” and “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents”, by Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee, both authors draw attention to the uses of patenting genes. Crichton goes on to say how gene patents have interfered with medical testings, research studies, and the miscommunications between doctors and their patients, while Calfee reiterates how patients and researchers are getting the benefits that come from patenting genes. Although both authors

On May 5, 2001, the world’s first genetically modified children were born. The United States performed an experiment from which, thirty healthy, GM babies were born; which brought up a concern for the ethics involved. The babies were born to mothers who would have been considered infertile otherwise. These children have DNA from three parents, two females and one male. Scientists extracted an egg from the infertile mother, and inserted fertile genes from the other woman before fertilization, in hopes of conceiving. The infertile women from the experiment were found to have defects in the mitochondria of their egg cells which prevented them from conceiving. Using the “healthy” eggs, scientists took fertile mitochondria and placed it into the infertile egg of the mother. Since these children have now inherited the modified genes into their germline, their “new” genes can be passed down to their children as well. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told BBC that, “Regarding the treatment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage.”

Scientists and doctors alike have long been looking for cures to diseases like cancer. For years now, there have been countless fundraisers to cure this and cure that. And yet, it seems as if there's never any progress. There may be a brief headline in the news about a new discovery, but they always seem to never go anywhere. Maybe the problem is that they've been looking in the wrong places. Maybe the cure doesn't lie on a medicinal level, but instead the genetic level, in genetic engineering and gene therapy. Direct manipulation of an organism's genome can be used in gene therapy as a means to alter genes, causing both positive and negatives effects as well as discussions about the ethical boundaries of modern

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

Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee explain the factors and outcomes that have come from gene patents. While Crichton is against these patents, suggesting that patents are a barrier to research and increase the cost of medical expenses, Calfee refutes these ideas; furthermore, the authors disagree as to whether genes meet the criteria for a patent to begin with (Crichton, paras. 1-13) (Calfee, paras. 1-6).

Human genetic engineering is the manipulation of human DNA to, ultimately, benefit the human body. In recent years, the debate on human genetic engineering has intensified. Human genetic engineering faces judgement from many scientists and the general public, but still receives some support. Nonetheless, this technology is no longer the plot of a strange science fiction novel. Human genetic engineering is happening today and as a result, we now have the power to control the evolutionary process. We have the power to design human beings based on what we want. I firmly believe that human genetic engineering regarding reproduction, or nonsexual reproduction, is a fundamental right. This gives humans control and options over when and how they have

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.

People always look for miracles in their life. What if there is a way to miracles? Genetic engineering can create miracles, by making impossibles to possibles. From the name genetic engineering we can define that is all about genetics. Haircolor, color skin, eye color, long or short all comes from genes that are inherited from the parents. What if we can create and customize our gene to have specific traits and actions? Genetic engineering is more beneficial than risky and has a huge effect on the today’s society because it plays a major role with treating human diseases, for pharmaceuticals and genetically modified foods for people and animals.

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

In 1990 the first gene therapy procedure gained approval and a four-year-old girl with SCIDs disease was finally able to fight off a simple cold. She is now able to live a normal life with the help of continued treatment of gene therapy. Although gene therapy is an innovative and ideally favorable procedure when it comes to treating diseases, cancer, or inherited disorders, it is still a delicate procedure and is continuously studied to insure it is not only effective but also and most importantly safe. In order to insure the safety of patients a gene therapy drug must get the approval of the FDA before becoming available, as every drug must do. Since gene therapy is still very experimental; there are only a few gene therapy drugs that have been approved by the FDA to treat patients. However, on August 30th, 2017 history was made when the FDA approved Kymriah, the first CAR-T cell therapy drug to be available in the United States. Kymriah is a one-time treatment for patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, it was developed through the research collaboration of Novartis and the University of Pennsylvania, and it is manufactured for each individual patient. Kymriah’s only drawback would be the price tag of $475,000 for a course of treatment, however Novartis plans to wave the fee for patients where Kymriah is not successful.

Genetic engineering is currently a growing field in which people are obsessing over. This is new and upcoming technology that combines genetic and Nanotechnological enhancements, which completes the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s characteristics in a particular way. In my opinion, it may very well be a great improvement, but it should only be used when necessary. If I were a parent of a child under 12 years of age, I would not sign up for the enhancement.