The Conflict of Gene Patents

With the development of science, cloning has become possible. Some cloning has been used to help benefit the human race; in some ways the environment and other species. However, other cloning uses could cause many problems such as a disadvantage in intelligence, strength, and who would be acceptable to obtain what jobs.

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.

Responsibility for allowing the issue to occur, the United States Patent Office approved the decoding of genes in which eventually lead to the ability to patent what was once property of a single person now belonged to the researchers and companies that took over right to research the specific gene to find a cure. Crichton expressed his views strongly that a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute named John E. Calfee followed his story on Patenting Life also voiced his theory on the idea of patented genes and the cost amongst other important views. Calfee, unlike Crichton, had an initial agreement with the cost and idea of being able to purchase a gene and have soley one seller be able to research. He noted “ I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation.” (Calfee 444)

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.”

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.

According to the author, critic and film producer, Michael Crichton who wrote “Patenting Life.” In his essay, he writes “Our genetic makeup… all life on Earth.” Human genes are nature like animals, trees and leaves are. A company cannot patent them but they have. Crichton states that medical researchers must pay royalty before

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.

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

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.

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.

Genetic engineering has to do with manipulating organisms and DNA to create body characteristics. The practice of genetic DNA has shown an increasing amount over the past years. The process of genetic enhancement involves manipulating organisms by using biotechnologies. The technique is by removing a DNA from one life form and transferring it to another set of traits or organism. Certain barriers are conquered, and the procedure involves changing a form of cells, resulting from an improvement or developed organism. GMO which is a (Genetic Modified Organisms) is the operation done in a laboratory where DNA genetic from one particular species or animals is directly forced into another gene from an unrelated subject of plants or even animals.

A genetic researcher or a genetic scientist analyzes hereditary characteristics to develop new pharmaceutical and agricultural products. They also work in clinical settings, as counselors for genetic diseases or physicians administering genetic treatments. A genetic researcher also alters genes in order to improve the biological capabilities of humans, plants and animals. In this field, the main goal is to help people lead quality lives. A genetic researcher is on a path of constant discovery of new combinations and permutations which can enhance the efficiency and optimality of its area of use. For example, trying to improve the quality of genetically modified seeds for better and more efficient growth of plants.