Myriad Genetics Argumentative Essay

This year, eight million innocent lives will be lost due to cancer. (cdc.gov) Eight million lives. That is equivalent to the entire population of New York City being eradicated because of one ravaging disease. However, there is a way to prevent these deaths, and this way is embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has the ability to not only find cures to some of our nation’s most appalling illnesses, but it also involves beneficial utilization of the hundreds of thousands of unused embryos that die each year at fertility centers. For these reasons, it is essential that embryonic stem cell research be funded by the U.S. government.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Think for a moment. Imagine the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, spinal injuries and almost every other cruel disease being at the world’s fingertips, but no further research is being done to interpret the use of these treatments. The miracle cure for many terminal illnesses is embryonic stem cells, which are in theory nothing but a ball of around 100-150 cells, yet numerous countries across the world have made their use illegal because it is ‘unethical’.

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

Understanding why embryonic stem cell research should be permitted imperative because it could help with the development of new drugs and treatments to treat diseases. It can help scientists replace human tissue nad save the lives of the thousands of people waiting for a transplant that may or may not come in time to save them. Finally, it shows society that we are one more step closer to finding a cure for cancer and other diseases like heart and brain disease. If embryonic stem cell treatment was an option to help a dear family member that was suffering, should they not be able to have that option of

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.

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.

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.