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 …show more content…
One of Crichton's fears of Gene Patents is it becoming a monopoly and after further reading you'll wish it was the board game, for instance Crichton states “And they raise the costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1000 now cost $3000.” (2007) the owner has the power to raise the price to whatever he/she fits leaving some patients for dead literally. But wait couldn't somebody just make a cheaper more affordable you say? Well according to Crichton “the patent blocks any competitor's test.” this frustrates all researchers. Gene Patents supporters argue the cost to be “a tempest in a teapot” Crichton further explains it’s simply not true explaining how millions are paid towards Hepatitis research causing researchers to choose something else to work on. Calfee has been a staff economist for 16 years and manager in the Bureau of Economics at the Federal Trade Commission also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute which means Calfee is all about the money. To point out the importance of money to Calfee he states “and like most economist I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation.” while Crichton is all for saving money Calfee wants pricing
“One-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned” according to an author Michael Crichton. Can you imagine a corporate company owning your genes in your body? It’s called gene patenting and its real. Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee discuss gene patent. Although the authors agree that medical test are expensive due gene patenting, the authors have different views about nature patenting and medical advancement.
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.
For a while now, the food that we consume has been generated through a far more complicated process than we had ever thought. Genetically Modified Organisms is the process by which food is being altered and grown in ways that do not occur naturally. Farming practices have been altered from organic to majorly GMO, in order to accommodate this highly profitable industry as well as the high demand by the citizens. GMOs allow food to grow faster, act as a bug repellant, and also cause the product to grow bigger in size in a short time span. We have for the most part stopped relying on local farmers and organic product to know depending on what is most convenient to us. With grocery stores being so readily available with anything you could possibly think of, or ask for, it would be hard to pass this convenience up.
A GMO is an organism whose genetic makeup is changed by humans. A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered, subtracted, or added (either from the same species or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that it does not have normally.
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.”
While researching texts written about genes the most interesting topic that came up was human gene patenting. Gene patenting is the exclusive right to a specific sequence of DNA given by a government to the individual , organization or corporation who claims to have first identified the gene. Human gene patenting is one of hot topic in today’s world and it could have a major effect for generations to come. Gene patenting represents a contract between an inventor and society. The goal in this paper to explain some of the benefits and risks involved in gene patenting.
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.
The ethics and human gene patenting are often controversial. The ethical interests of big corporations which are frankly looking to making money and what the common man perceive is completely different which makes this topic disputed about and triggers people. There is a huge concern about the disparities in influence and wealth amongst individuals and concerns about the lack of pellucidity, accountability and public symposium encompassing noteable changes in people’s rights, opportunities and status. Hence, ethical matters are not easily dispersed and need to be thought harder about the essence and justification of patent law itself.
“There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” This quote by Jonas Salk, the researcher who invented the polio vaccine in the height of the polio scare, demonstrates the natural resistance people have to patents on biological agents. If society can grant individuals or small groups of individuals the exclusive rights to the production and use of biological agents in the form of a patent, the morality of such patents must be taken into consideration. David Resnik’s adaption of Marx’s theories of economic exploitation to a biomedical setting can be used to determine whether biological patents are moral. According to Resnik, “A exploits B if and only if 1) A takes advantage of B and 2)
8. References Abstract of the research paper Takeshi Ishida “Should genetic engineering be controlled by law?” I chose this topic because I used to study medicine at my former university.
What is gene patenting? “A gene patent is the exclusive rights to a specific sequence of DNA (a gene) given by a government to the individual,
Our world is full of complications, situations that need people’s attention. Scientists are attempting to find answers for most of the world’s difficulties. Nevertheless, a solution for one problem creates some other obstacle. It becomes impossible to create a solution that does not have side effects. One of the difficult situations in this world is hunger and poverty. Many people lack enough food to live a healthy life, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries. In order to provide sufficient food and maintain food security, scientists discovered genetically altered foods. Genetically engineered foods are grown from plants or animals whose genes are modified by inserting new genes that can increase the plant’s and animal’s resistance to diseases and worms. By doing so, researchers improve crop yield and animal products. In addition to increasing the amount of food produced, scientists enhance the nutritive content of crops by using biotechnology, which results in reducing malnutrition. Furthermore, some investigators claim the environmental importance of
What is one of the first things you’ll hear about working in the TV industry? That it’s a
Most food we consume on a daily basis are genetically modified, is this safe? Genetic medication is when the cellular structure of a living thing is changed using DNA technology. They put vitamins and minerals in our food so as they tell it, can be more notorious. Have you ever been to McDonalds and bought food but didn’t eat it all? So you left in the fridge, it never seems to go bad. They put so many preservatives in it that it doesn’t really good bad at all. But what does that do to our bodies? They add much more than just minerals and vitamins. A good aspect of this is, many vegetables are modified to grow bigger and healthier so that we have an abundance of it, and also it’s better for you to eat.
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.