Gene Patenting Research Paper

We cannot obtain a “Yes” or “No” answer on “Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect the amount of research that is conducted to find naturally occurring disease-causing DNA sequences”. It is because the statue is clearly stated that things that are created or invented can be applied to obtain a patent when those things are (1) novel, (2) useful, and (3) nonobvious (Cheeseman, 2015, P.135). Although discovering the disease-causing DNA sequences cannot be patented, the medicine or drug formulation on curing based on the related research can apply for a patent because it is an “invention”.

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.

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.”

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.

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

For example these patents may make it difficult for other scientists or organizations to come up with new innovations that can help crops become more nutritional green etc.

Court decision on gene patents impacts GM crops by Mateusz Perkowski explores the issue of patenting genes and what are the standards for a genes to be patentable. This article is from the The Capital Press, which is a weekly agricultural newspaper covering the West Coast of the United States. Perkowski is a writer and journalist that graduated from Willamette University. This is a good resource for those who are researching about patents and its connection to law and what makes a gene patentable. It is not that long however, it uses quotes from reputable sources such as Chris Holman, a law professor, that make this article a valuable source for this topic in particular. This article is relevant towards my research paper since it provides evidence

When speaking about genetically modified or genetically engineered organisms, an important distinction must be made. This new breed of technology does not use traditional means of gene

      In the past three decades, scientists have learned how to mix and match characteristics among unrelated creatures by moving genes from one creature to another. This is called “genetic engineering.” Genetic Engineering is prematurely applied to food production. There are estimates that food output must increase by 60 percent over the next 25 years to keep up with demand. Thus, the result of scientist genetically altering plants for more consumption. The two most common methods for gene transfer are biological and electromechanical. “Early experiments all involved changing DNA using bacterial vectors”(Randerson, 2001). Through other advances scientists proclaim how they can improve the human gene pool. All humans have

What defines the law of nature? Our genetic makeup is what makes us individual from others, an unplanned decision that no one had control over; it was a decision dictated by nature. This scenario is the concept of the law of nature, something made by nature that cannot be influenced or changed by man. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that human DNA cannot be patented but synthetic DNA (cDNA) is patent eligible because it is artificially made. Human DNA is now strictly off limits, thanks to the court ruling versus Myriad Genetics in June 2013. The court ruling could not have been made possible without the people who pushed to make the case public, those whose genes were being patented. Breast cancer patients were being charged an excess amount of money to patent their human DNA which turned out to be an illegal act. Someone having the ability to own another person 's DNA was not something that was going to be okay. However, there are still blurred lines on gene patenting due to cases such as cDNA naturally occurring in retroviruses like HIV1. Although synthetic DNA can naturally exist in retroviruses and be patented, genetic laboratories should not be able to patent all naturally occurring DNA sequences and use them in genetic testing because it violates the law of nature.

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element of novelty, must show “an inventive step”, and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act, 1970 defines “inventive step” as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common general knowledge that exists while

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

The concept of product patent for pharmaceutical products is likely to make life saving medicine beyond the reach of the poor and deprived section of the society around the world.