Gene Patenting Debate Summary

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

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.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

When you hear people say things like, “This is my body, so I can do whatever I want with it!” Then when you hear that, just think about. Is it really your body? Well, let's really look into that question. Gene patenting is a dubitable practice that uses people's DNA for research in various avaricious ways. It have been an ongoing controversial practice for a few years already. In the articles , “Patenting Life” by Michael Crichton and “Decoding the use of Gene Patents” by John E. Calfee they both explain their various issues that are happening in today's society with gene patenting.

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.

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

A man by the name of John Locke once said “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” These wise words may still and eternally be applied to our law system as a basis for our human rights and improvement. As of relatively recent times these basic political ideals have been challenged through the arise of genetic patents. These patents have stripped researchers from their ability to further investigate certain, often vital, sections of DNA. Additionally, these patents have placed many small family owned farms at a particular disposition. Companies such as Myriad Genetics and Monsanto are challenging our freedom, and rights to own property.

I believe the company that owns a particular gene and that gene shows up in a farmer’s crop they should be able to own that crop to a certain extent. If there is proof that the farmer who doesn’t own the gene didn’t have any intentions to steal it then they should be able to simply remove the crop without any penalties. If a company owns a gene that somehow ends ups on another farmer’s land without them know, that shouldn't be fair for them to get punished. It’s almost like being framed in a way. Any company can drive by with a truck full of their seeds and have them blow onto someone else's farm so they can sue them.

The genetic engineering of foods has, in one sense, been in existence for hundreds of years. The first time Gregor Mendel bred different varieties of pea plants to observe the various traits present in their offspring, the concept was born. Today, genetic engineering has developed into one of the most complex and advanced fields of scientific thinking, all the while provoking many questions and acquiring many opponents along the way. While there are compelling arguments presented for each side of the issue, the simple fact is that genetically modified (GM) foods are a reality, especially in the United States, as they are already present in many products that are consumed on a daily

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

I do not agree with the court’s decision because of moral reasons. In an incident involving the Percy Schmeiser case, the court decided that Percy is responsible for the seed being on his field, no matter how it ended up there (The Future of Food). This statement is ridiculous because of the possibility for these seeds to arrive on Schmeiser’s land without him having any knowledge of it. For example, the seed could have been blown onto his field by the wind. In court, the jury sided with Monsanto and Schmeiser lost. The court explained that Percy was still responsible no matter how the seed landed there. In fact, the jury stated that any farmer who has a regular plant, if it becomes cross pollinated with Monsanto’s genes, that plant is owned

Through those agreements and its own seeds, Monsanto biotech traits can be found in most of the corn and soybeans planted in the US. These patents solidify Monsanto’s monopoly over bioengineered crops by increasing the barriers to enter the market. Other firms cannot surpass Monsanto because of Monsanto’s advanced research and technology. The other firms that could even be considered competitive with Monsanto must license technology and innovations from Monsanto to create a suitable substitute for Monsanto’s products.

The defendant Monsanto owned a patent for Roundup Ready Canola, which contained genetically modified genes and cells. This product was resistant to the herbicide Roundup, which would kill all other plants. Monsanto issued licenses for the use of Roundup. Schmeiser, a farmer, never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he have a license to plant it, yet in 1998 his fields contained 95-98% Roundup Ready plants. The issue before the court was the patent’s validity. Since all parties agreed that the patent was valid for the gene, the process of insertion and the cell derived from the process, the question was whether the patent covered the plant that is generated from the patented cell. According to the majority “infringement does not require use of the gene or cell in isolation” and there is infringement if the “patented invention is a significant aspect of the defendant 's activity”. Also in question was if Schmeiser “used” the patented gene or cell thus infringing the patent? The defendant was found to infringe the Patent by depriving the inventor of the full enjoyment of the monopoly conferred by law, by planting and celling the seed without buying or paying the licensing fee of the plant. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that genes and the cells that contain them can be patented. The court therefore ruled that the patent protection extended to the plant and that Schmeiser’s activity infringed the patent, and Schmeiser was ordered to pay the profits made from those

Biotechnology is a broad term. Basically, it is the “tools and techniques [opening] new research avenues for discovering how healthy bodies work and what goes wrong when problems arise”(Siedler para. 1). It covers controversial technology and procedure, like genetic engineering and gene therapy. It is controversial because it can affect everyone(Jeremy para. 16). As a consequence, the development of biotechnology has been a “slow, quiet progress”(Kirsner para. 3) because society may or may not recognize the repercussion of it. However, scientist like Smith- a previous chief for the Cambridge biotech company, Genzyme- continues to develop biotechnology(para. 1). Because biotechnology can be controversial, yet scientist continues to develop it;