The Debate Over Gene Patenting Essay

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”.

Michael Crichton makes a good point when talking about the examples given. The situation dealing with Canavan disease and the Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute is a good example of how gene patenting can block the general population from enjoying a medical advancement. Another example is when Crichton states, “When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it because of patent concerns” (442 par. 12). Gene patenting has a fundamental flaw in it because it is slowing the advancement of modern medicine. Gene patenting blocks researchers from looking into genes that companies own and demands royalties every time the patent is in use. This is a problem that the United States needs to address so that patients can enjoy all the medical advancements that are in reach for the future.

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.

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.

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.

One of Crichton's fears of Gene Patents is it becoming a monopoly and after further reading you'll wish it was the board game, for instance Crichton states “And they raise the costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1000 now cost $3000.” (2007) the owner has the power to raise the price to whatever he/she fits leaving some patients for dead literally. But wait couldn't somebody just make a cheaper more affordable you say? Well according to Crichton “the patent blocks any competitor's test.” this frustrates all researchers. Gene Patents supporters argue the cost to be “a tempest in a teapot” Crichton further explains it’s simply not true explaining how millions are paid towards Hepatitis research causing researchers to choose something else to work on. Calfee has been a staff economist for 16 years and manager in the Bureau of Economics at the Federal Trade Commission also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute which means Calfee is all about the money. To point out the importance of money to Calfee he states “and like most economist I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation.” while Crichton is all for saving money Calfee wants pricing

The Goal of the Human Genome Project is to obtain genetic mapping information and to determine the complete sequence of all human DNA by the year of 2005. The project started in 1990 and 180 million dollars are being spent on it annually. This adds up to a total of over 2 billion dollars for the 15 year budget. Of this 2 billion dollars budgeted, 5% is spent annually on the ethical, legal and social issues. This report focused on some of these issues.

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.

       Since the beginning of organized government there has always been a clash between science and politics. Whether it is as complicated as a new drug's detainment of federal approval or whether it is as commonplace as the social acceptance of a new medical procedure, politics has performed an integral part in the formation of science; this integrated unit is what greatly affects most of the society at large. Thus, it is no surprise the scientific discussion of genetic engineering is peppered with political rhetoric.

Mapping the human genome was so ground breaking because for the first time it allowed researchers to

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.

Exploration into the function of each gene discovered will continue well into the 21st century. The knowledge gained from this will lead us to better understand the cause of genetically related diseases. Having the ability to recognize the causation of a disease will shift technology from trial and error treatments to specific drugs designed to treat the gene sequence and protein structure. This is called gene therapy and is the most exciting aspect of the HGP. It gives the