Genetically Modified Organisms Should Be Allowed For Preserve Their Property Rights By Patenting Such Organisms

8. What might happen if the beneficial traits that scientists inserted into agricultural crops spread to non-agricultural settings?

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

Chapter 25 – 1976-1988 – This chapter details the history of patenting living organisms — 1980 Supreme Court ruling which declared that Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty could patent a bacterium genetically engineered to consume oil and to help clean up oil spills.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), have turned into an exceptionally questionable theme here in our reality today. GMOs are life forms that have been developed through a quality joining methodologies of biotechnology or genetics building. This is a moderately new type of science which permits DNA from an individual species to be injected into another species in a research center. This produces blends of plant, creature, microscopic organisms, and viral qualities that don 't show up in conventional crossbreeding systems or found in nature. GMO’s have been liked to several health-related issues, and should be banned by the FDA (Genetically Modified Organisms, N.D. ).

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).

Base on this week’s reading, the biotechnology researches are need to be protected by patent because of the high cost. Like other patented pharmaceutical medicine, Patent will encourage researchers to develop gene based products, make more specify, more human tolerated medicine and make more diseases

This finding became the foundation of the genetic modification process. In 1983, the first transgenic plant was created. Scientists were able to create a tobacco plant that could resist anti-biotic. Shortly after this creation, genetically engineered cotton was effectively field tested in 1990. Five years later, Monsanto the leading biotech company, released herbicide-immune soybeans. Finally, the promising science of genetic modifications was improved even further in 2000 with the discovery that the modification process could be used to bring vitamins and nutrients to enhance foods.

“Our primary health care should begin on the farm and in our hearts, and not in some laboratory of the biotech and pharmaceutical companies” (Gary Hopkins). The sun was hot and they sky was clear when I walked into the grocery store that smoldering summer day. I walked in expecting to pick up things for a barbecue; burgers, hotdogs, salad, buns, corn on the cob, condiments and of course chips and snacks. Strolling down the fresh produce aisle I began to wonder, what if all of my food isn’t fresh, clean, no preservatives or pesticides or even GMO’s for that matter? Why shouldn’t every food be labeled with exactly what went into making it? Even if that means it needs to be traced all the way back down to the DNA. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be labeled because the health risks are still unknown, consumers want to know what they are eating and there is a growing rate of people developing allergies to them.

Ideally a patent is not supposed to give monopoly over an idea to an inventor unless the idea is useful to the public. Thus, a gene should be shown to be capable of being useful to the public in the form of new products or treatment, before anyone should be able to patent it.

The patenting of GMO corn and soybean seeds is quite a deceptive business move on Monsanto’s part because it appears to protect the seeds that farmers purchase, but in turn the patents really only look out for the company’s best interest. While Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt for using patented products, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare. This paper exposes Monsanto’s use of Genetically Modified Organisms exhibited in “Induced Nuisance: Holding Patent Owners Liable for GMO Cross-Contamination” to uncover the damaging environmental and economic effects their business practices have on privately owned farms. Monsanto’s use of gene patents is responsible for the destruction of many farms, the reduction in crop varieties, and the development of resistant weeds and pests all in the name of corporate expansion. This paper also reveals Monsanto’s role in the legalization and use of gene patents globally. Monsanto’s recklessness is being uncovered in this paper because their advantageous business practices exemplify greed and class

Introduction A patent is a right, a monopoly of limited duration, in most cases it is for 20 years. It is a right that prohibits other persons from making, using, selling or importing an invention. An invention is one thing, a way of doing something, which is new, useful, and which does not already exist in nature in the same form. There are several types of patent, but the one we are interested in is the biological patent, which is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that allows the patent holder to prevent others from making it from using it, selling it or importing it. The regulation of biological patents varies from country to country and may include biological technologies and products. Genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The patents of each country are valid only for that country. Thus, a Canadian patent is only valid in Canada and has no application in Germany and may contain specific rights, different from German patents. Each country grants its own patents, but there are several broad principles that are common to all patent systems. A set of international agreements establishes certain general standards that apply to patents; such as the duration of the monopoly, the

It was decided almost 20 years about by the Food and Drug Administration that GMOs do not need to be labeled, despite the consumers’ desire for GMO labeling. Consumers’ demanding to know what is in their food has lead to the proposed legislation of GMO labeling from more than twenty states. Health safety is a large part of the proponents’ argument for GMO labeling (Murray 2016). The consumers right to know, right to choose, and ethical rights are also all reasons for GMO labeling policy. The oppositions’ arguments against mandatory GMO labeling are that it could falsely alarm consumers, impose extra costs on consumers and lead to restricts on consumer choice (Hemphill 2015). There would be more harm than good to come from

Technology enriches our society by making widely available new and useful goods, services, and technical information . Clearly, as a society, we would want to encourage the development of technology so that we can reap the benefits they offer us. Innovators require an incentive to invent and share these technologies with the rest of society. This incentive is achieved by granting intellectual property rights (IPR) to inventors . More specifically, the incentive is usually achieved by granting patents to inventors .

“A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a subject of debate.”

    The development of recombinant DNA techniques have allowed desired genes to be inserted into a plant genomes resulting in plants that are totally different to the parent plant. The first genetically modified plant-antibiotic resistant tobacco and petunias-were produced in 1983, but it was until 1994 that US markets saw the first genetically modified species of tomato, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since then, several transgenic crops have received FDA