Gene Patenting Life By Michael Crichton Summary

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.

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.

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

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.

Gene technology carries with it social and ethical implications—many of which engender personal views and discussion.

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

Crichton asserts that doctors can't get relevant information on certain illnesses and how we've been promised an era of personalized medicine. He argues that gene patents destroy that dream (442). He pushes for support of a bill that will ban gene patenting of genes found in nature, the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act (442). Calfee argues that the National Academy of Sciences have looked into these problems. Twice they commissioned surveys led by John Walsh and both times little evidence emerged that labs were hemmed by gene

Every human has rights. But how far can a human push their rights into science with choosing the own genes of their child or do they even have the right to say and pick what their child may look like. Well, it looks like they do because a U.S. fertility clinic is offering parents to have made to order babies pretty much. Letting "...moms and dads pick whether junior has blue or brown eyes or black or blond hair" as if they were building their own toy (Salamone). Even the doctor who came up with it, Dr. Jeff Steinberg stated "genetic health is the wave of the future" and "it's already happening and it is not going to go away" (Salamone).We are already being led to a society with the idea of a flawless human being. However, other doctors are not warming up to this idea so fast. Some

The human race has been manipulating genetic transfer for over 10 000 years. We have been using the same principle of ‘natural selection’ (selection by the environment for the fittest) to develop artificial selection also known as selective breeding (selection by humans for the fittest.).

More than four thousand human genes are patented in the U.S, and the drug company Incyte based in Palo Alto, California calms two thousand of those genes (Lovgren). Gene patenting is a relatively new concept and a controversial one at that. Many scholars have very strong opinions on this topic. Two of these scholars being: Harvard graduate and novelist Michael Crichton and a former resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and staff economist John E. Calfee. Both scholars have written extremely compelling essays on the topic. Crichton’s essay “Patenting Life”, gives an overview of his adverse opinion towards gene patenting and provides evidence to support his opinion. Former AEI scholar Calfee also provides his opinion on

Genetics is a world of unknown limitations. From the small fraction of application seen being explored today, they have yet to even begin exploring its true wonders and comprehend its beauty as an entirety. As of today, animals and plants have been the only beneficiaries of genetic research and experimentation (National Human Genome Research Institute). Such experiments have led to the development of better chances of survival of modified organisms against harsh environments. Pigs and cows are an example of how organisms can be modified to better effect the environment (Moss). Corn is an example of how crops can be adapted for other, previously unsuitable areas such as Africa (Glenn). Animals and plants have greatly benefited from genetic modification and research, but why should they be the only ones to get such great results. Humans should be granted the right to

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.

Philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues there is nothing inherently wrong about genetic engineering. He defenses his perspective by refuting other controversies against genetic engineering. At the beginning I want to define genetic engineering, meaning the direct manipulation of an organism’s genetic materials in ways that do not occur under natural condition. The exploration of genetic engineering completely exceeds the convention. However breaking edge innovation is risky to develop and the path of research

When thinking about patents, many of us wonder how anyone can patent genes that all of us have carried since we were born. U.S patent law allows inventors to claim new and useful machines, processes, and objects as proprietary creations. This privilege, however, has not been extended to naturally occurring phenomena, such as elements in the periodic table. However, a legal precedent now allows human genes to be patented. In order to study genes, scientists have to isolate and manipulate genes in the laboratory. Thus, in the eyes of patent law, genes are treated just as any other man-made chemical ( Regalado 50). On the strength of this logic, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has been issuing patents to genetic discoveries since the 1970s. Human growth-hormone, insulin, erythropoietin-protein drugs with billions of dollars in combined sales are all manufactured using patented DNA sequences.

In today’s society, what if I told you that you don’t really belong to yourself. Each individual person was actually owned, at least partially, to a random individual that you have never laid your eyes upon. Having this information revealed to you in such a desperate time can be a bit of a shocking revelation. This information that I have just now released to you have been going on for all the better half of thirty two years. Let me take it a step back and give you the specifics of what most people really don’t want you to know. Genes, it’s the common dominator that ties all living species together. Now you are probably wondering, how do our genes have anything to do with this? What if I told you that individuals have discovered a way to place ownership on any living organism that shares a particular gene? This is called gene patenting. In 1980 there was a U.S. Justice Supreme Court of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, “447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980), held that microorganisms produced by genetic engineering are not excluded from patent protection by 35. U.S.C. 101. IT is clear from the Supreme Court decision and opinion that the question of whether or not an invention embraces living matter is irrelevant to the issue of patentability” (USPTO). Being able to patent a particular gene or a sequence of genes that will provide ownership to that person. Having this type of “power” I believe is wrong and should have never been allowed for society to abuse.