Michael Crichton Vs Calfee

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

John Moore lost the lawsuit against David Golde, according to the judge he had no right “to ownership interest in the patent - he was not one of the inventors. Nor, it concluded, could a patient exercise property rights over discarded body tissues.” (von der Ropp & Taubman, 2006). The loss of the lawsuit by Moore caused a lot of media attention and again a big ethical discussion in science. As previously said, this story also highlighted the importance of ethical and ownership laws in medical research.

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.

OWNERSHIP OF CELLS RAISES STICKY ISSUES … WHO SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS TO A PATIENT’S CELLS? … WHO TOLD YOU YOU COULD SELL MY SPLEEN? (Skloot, Rebecca Scientists, lawyers, ethicists, and policymakers debated the issues: some called for legislation that would make it illegal for doctors to take patients’ cells or commercialize them without consent and the disclosure of potential profits; others argued that doing so would create a logistical nightmare that would put an end to medical progress.(Skloot, Rebecca (2010-01-28). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (p. 204). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle

Innovations and scientific advances in the 20th century brought about further knowledge of genes and genetics, and later of how diseases interact with human cells. This level of scientific progress was unprecedented, and the medical and biological ethics going along with the science needed time to catch up. From the 1950s with the collection of HeLa cells to the early 2000s with Dr. Catalona, there has been debate over who owns tissue samples taken from human beings. This paper presents an argument for a limited ownership of tissue samples.

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.

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.

Patent Genes have been the center of a attention for a very long time. When we take the time to stop and think about how research and medical cost affect our lifestyles, it is very alarming to know that even the natural occurrences in life can be bought for the right price. In the op-ed piece and article, “Patenting Life” and “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents”, by Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee, both authors draw attention to the uses of patenting genes. Crichton goes on to say how gene patents have interfered with medical testings, research studies, and the miscommunications between doctors and their patients, while Calfee reiterates how patients and researchers are getting the benefits that come from patenting genes. Although both authors

Genetic Engineering has produced an array of breakthroughs in the progression of modern medicine. Though it is faced with both ethical and potential environmental grievances, the efficacious results of Genetic Engineering counterpoise the criticisms from environmentalists. Researchers in genetics have provided simple solutions to problems that society has consistently endured. Genetic Engineering offers solutions to failing crops and heightened yields in production as well as numerous applications in medicine. It is approached by the concerns of the environmental impact of such actions, as well as the civil concern on ethics.

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

Bioengineered humans are becoming a reality, with almost limitless possibilities for future generations. Gregory Stock takes an optimistic stance on “Germinal choice [technologies]” in his article Choosing our Genes, while comparing the medical lives we live today to the potential lives lead by future generations that receive the advantages of germinal choice. Germinal choice technologies as define by Stock are “a whole realm of technologies by which parents influence the genetic constitutions of their children at the time of their conception.”

Genetic information can be identified at any point throughout a person’s lifespan from pre-conception until after death. In addition to heritable, biological information, family history, genetic test results, and medical records are also sources of genetic information” (Jenkins & Lea, 2005). We are put in a position to gather and retain information that could be utilized for a better future, but is confidentiality involved for the sake of profiting? Ask yourself, who should have access to genetic information? Who owns and controls it? How can families resolve conflicts when some members want to be tested for a genetic disorder and others do not?

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.

I am definitely leaning towards the previous law that life forms should not be patented. It is a complicated discussion though, on one hand, if someone comes up with a brilliant idea for the use of a plant, such as the Neem tree for pesticide, by all means they should be allowed to patent it. But, considering this is a living thing, why shouldn't everyone be able to use the Neem tree for pesticide without paying this one particular person. I suppose it boils down to opinions and beliefs. My belief is, if I have a Neem tree in my yard and I want to extract the properties out of it to use as pesticide, I should not have to be afraid of a lawsuit from anyone for doing so. If I have surgery and they remove my spleen, how does that part of

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.