The Good in Gene Patenting for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Essay

It is patients’ right to opt for genetic testing on their own DNA, although they are accepting a great risk by doing so.

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.

“One-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned” according to an author Michael Crichton. Can you imagine a corporate company owning your genes in your body? It’s called gene patenting and its real. Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee discuss gene patent. Although the authors agree that medical test are expensive due gene patenting, the authors have different views about nature patenting and medical advancement.

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

There 's at least one person we all know who maybe have a deadly disease and may not be receiving the treatment they desperately need. Michael Crichton a film producer, critic and author of “Patenting Life,” earned his degree from Harvard Medical School, and author John E. Calfee a resident scholar of American Enterprise Institution and economist author of “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” both share their views on gene patents. Crichton and Calfee share similarities on the research itself, but do not share the same ideas on whether or not gene patents put a halt on research, and paying a royalty to study the gene.

Myriad is a company that uses genetic testing and DNA to pinpoint specific parts of our genes that may make us more prone to diseases such as cancer (Myriad). Among these tests is a BRAC analysis, developed in 1996 to locate the gene for breast and ovarian cancers (Myriad). With this knowledge, patients would be aware of their genetic predispositions, which would allow them to take action early on and choose interventions based upon their results (Myriad). Since this test allows people to catch diseases early, or even before it becomes cancer, it has the potential to save countless lives.

I guess the issue I am having with this whole gene patent situation is that the owner of the patent can basically keep parts of your body and do whatever kind of testing to the gene without asking your approval for it, or at least pay you for running test without your knowledge since it's pretty much

“Patent thicket” is the term used by Calfee when describing the phenomena of patents hindering research (444). In his essay, he dedicates a number of paragraphs to this trend and elaborates on his opinion that gene patenting does not in any way hinder research. The first piece of evidence used by the former AEI scholar is an account where NAS conducted two surveys and both found a very minimal amount of evidence that pointed to patents hindering researchers (444), and from this he found out that researches hardly ever fret over whether or not a gene has a patent on it (445). In addition to talking about whether or not a patent halts research, he also discusses price. He addresses that gene patented tests are expensive, something both him and Crichton agree on, but also says that there is no difference in price compared to tests for genes that do not have patents on them (Calfee 445). This may be true in some cases, but Crichton brings up a defense for that statement and references a test for breast cancer that would be one thousand dollars but instead costs three thousand because the gene they test for has a patent on it. The novelist continues on this topic by shining a light on the idea that an outcome of gene patenting is the halting of innovation and negative effects on patients (441). Crichton holds extreme opinions on this topic and discusses what else comes with a gene patent besides the original gene. He states that in some cases, the owner of a gene can also be entitled to all of the mutations that occur in it as well (Crichton 442). He also strongly believes that the researchers will shy away from trying to conduct studies on genes and diseases related to that gene if they are patented, such as the disease SARS (Crichton 442). All and all both scholars have strong

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?

I believe the company that owns a particular gene and that gene shows up in a farmer’s crop they should be able to own that crop to a certain extent. If there is proof that the farmer who doesn’t own the gene didn’t have any intentions to steal it then they should be able to simply remove the crop without any penalties. If a company owns a gene that somehow ends ups on another farmer’s land without them know, that shouldn't be fair for them to get punished. It’s almost like being framed in a way. Any company can drive by with a truck full of their seeds and have them blow onto someone else's farm so they can sue them.

The patenting issue gained some attention when President Bill Clinton and Prime Minster Tony Blair jointly called for the release of raw genetic data into the public domain (CQ 405). I will argue in this paper that the aggressive competition among biotechnology firms to patent genes is

In today’s society, what if I told you that you don’t really belong to yourself. Each individual person was actually owned, at least partially, to a random individual that you have never laid your eyes upon. Having this information revealed to you in such a desperate time can be a bit of a shocking revelation. This information that I have just now released to you have been going on for all the better half of thirty two years. Let me take it a step back and give you the specifics of what most people really don’t want you to know. Genes, it’s the common dominator that ties all living species together. Now you are probably wondering, how do our genes have anything to do with this? What if I told you that individuals have discovered a way to place ownership on any living organism that shares a particular gene? This is called gene patenting. In 1980 there was a U.S. Justice Supreme Court of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, “447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980), held that microorganisms produced by genetic engineering are not excluded from patent protection by 35. U.S.C. 101. IT is clear from the Supreme Court decision and opinion that the question of whether or not an invention embraces living matter is irrelevant to the issue of patentability” (USPTO). Being able to patent a particular gene or a sequence of genes that will provide ownership to that person. Having this type of “power” I believe is wrong and should have never been allowed for society to abuse.

According to Kenneth Pakenham, Jo McEntire, and Jessica Williams (2013), in “Making Connections” Gene therapy and genetic tests are long experiment by scientists to find out specific genes are related to fatal diseases and birth defects. Many severe diseases depend on the gene type. When genes are known genetic tests for many genes will be available. Despite several challenges for gene therapy, genes treatment is possible identifying their defective genes tests.

Genetic research has furthered our understanding of the human genetic makeup and has created the potential to transform medicine. This potential is not just limited to medicine, but the potential to further research and monetize the human genetic makeup. Through gene patenting, the monetization of genetic material can provide for a financial incentive for researchers and institutions to further innovation. The developments in the ability to patent genes and the laws surrounding gene patents has raised concerns of the ethical and medical issues as highlighted in authors, Michael Crichton’s article “Patenting Life” and John E. Calfee’s article “Decoding The Use of Gene Patents.” Both authors (1) share similar views on the ethical concerns and research results. (2) Calfee differs by explaining further that