This weeks discussion seems to be disheartening with respect to our legal system and allowing patents such as these to even be allowed. Like you said, everyone that wants to do research to find a cure for breast or colon cancer should be allowed. Do you think that Myriad Genetics just wants recognition for the discovery, if it happens, or is it all about money? I feel it is all about money. A man had his cancerous spleen removed at the University of California. In turn the University removed the cells from his spleen and found that they could be used to produce valuable proteins. They got a patent on these cells. The man then wanted his cells returned and the California Supreme Court denied him rights and royalties to his cells because
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.
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks Rebecca Skoots book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” depicts the human and background story of the immortal cell line HeLa and where exactly they came from, this books provides the untold story of the cell line that has allowed science to improve not just in America but in many more places. The HeLa cell is an immortal cell line used in scientific research; it gets its name from Henrietta Lacks. From this cell line science has accomplished numerous medicines and gained knowledge but what has Henrietta lacks or her family gained from this?
4. John Moore filed a lawsuit against UCLA researcher David Golde in 1984 because Golde had devoted much of the seven years after taking Moore’s spleen out during surgery to develope and marketing cell line called Mo. Moore had no idea that the spleen that was taken out of him even years ago was making a profit without his knowledge. Gold also filed for a patent on Moore’s cells (and several extremely valuable proteins those cells produces), without explaining to Moore his plan. Golde hadn’t yet sold the rights to the patent, but according to the lawsuit that Moore filed, Golde entered into agreements with a biotech company that gave him stocks and financing worth more than $3-5 million to “commercially develop” and “scientifically investigate” the Mo cell line. The value estimated to be $3 billion Another result was that nothing was considered patentable until a few years before Moore’s lawsuit (in 1980) when the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Ananda Mohan
Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life? Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality. However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells. In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos. President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of
Today technology has changed the life of many individuals, this new improvements have come a long way over the course of a lifetime. The new technological advances have led to new scientific discoveries that have help society to better understand the world that we live in. Gregory Stock in his article “Choosing our Genes” (2002) states the importance of germinal choice technology and how this new method will allow parents to influence the genetics of their unborn children. His purpose is to influence the reader about the benefits that this method might have in future generations and to encourage his audience to support this unique method. Stock is writing to a well-educated audience such as scientists, college students, and educators who are
DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.
The monopoly Myriad has on the industry may be in their best business interests, but it is not in the interests of access and affordability of the majority. Their patents they have the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for ovarian and breast cancer research are unethical and wrong despite the many arguments they have to this viewpoint.
Imagine living in a world without cancer, Parkinson 's, or even diabetes. While everyone may wish this is true, people are against a way that researchers can make this possible, which would be by the use of stem cells. There is major controversy on whether or not stem cell research should be allowed, especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Although many consider it to be killing a potential life form, embryonic stem cell research may eventually be acceptable to use because there is consent and a lengthy process to make sure the donor understands what their embryonic stem cells will be used for. That may be viewed as a much better
In 1990 the first gene therapy procedure gained approval and a four-year-old girl with SCIDs disease was finally able to fight off a simple cold. She is now able to live a normal life with the help of continued treatment of gene therapy. Although gene therapy is an innovative and ideally favorable procedure when it comes to treating diseases, cancer, or inherited disorders, it is still a delicate procedure and is continuously studied to insure it is not only effective but also and most importantly safe. In order to insure the safety of patients a gene therapy drug must get the approval of the FDA before becoming available, as every drug must do. Since gene therapy is still very experimental; there are only a few gene therapy drugs that have been approved by the FDA to treat patients. However, on August 30th, 2017 history was made when the FDA approved Kymriah, the first CAR-T cell therapy drug to be available in the United States. Kymriah is a one-time treatment for patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, it was developed through the research collaboration of Novartis and the University of Pennsylvania, and it is manufactured for each individual patient. Kymriah’s only drawback would be the price tag of $475,000 for a course of treatment, however Novartis plans to wave the fee for patients where Kymriah is not successful.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death, following close behind heart disease. Each year there are 7.6 million people that die from cancer around the world. Now, for everyday people, this seems tragic, but for the Food and Drug Administration, this is a huge money maker. They give the hospitals the drugs they need to help people fight cancer, but not the ones to beat cancer. The FDA is hiding the cure. They are doing this because there are thousands of cancer specialized jobs, millions of dollars coming into cancer research each year, and a lot of money coming from treatment and medicine for all the patients.
The assertion that adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is more of a gift than a disease can be argued in multiple ways. For an audience of clinicians, the subject of the argument would most likely be the diagnosis itself. Such an argument would be an argument to convince and, given the audience, it would require a fact-centered approach, known as logos, to resonate, and these facts would ultimately involve statistics in one form or another. There is a real risk of losing credibility by presenting statistics in support of an alternative hypothesis to an academically inclined audience who are would be very familiar with the scientific method. As Everything’s an Argument states, “…numbers rarely speak for themselves. They need to be
Why live a life with average abilities when we can enhance our abilities through genetic engineering on our DNA for the greater good? Genetic engineering is “the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.” It is not exactly a science in a broad sense, but a branch of biotechnology, which uses methods of molecular and biology, virology, and genetics. Genetic engineering on the human genome should be approved because it has the potential to make lives and the world better. Genetic disorders could be permanently eliminated, certain genes could be reactivated for regrowth of necessary cells, eliminating many neurological disorders, and delaying ageing, which would expand scientific research in order to many world complications.
Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.