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.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are two genes that have been patented by Myriad Genetics. These genes are not rare, they are found in everyone. One of the outstanding characteristics of these genes is their ability to naturally fix DNA. Myriad Genetics isolated the gene from the DNA sequence. The company has created a test that can reveal a possible mutation in those genes, which correlates with a higher breast and
…show more content…
Rebecca Skloot writes about this issue on page 324 of her book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. “Myriad has been accused of creating a monopoly, since no one else can offer the test, and researchers can’t develop cheaper tests or new therapies without getting permission from Myriad and paying steep licensing fees.” Here, Skloot is accusing Myriad Genetics of having absolute power over the trade and supply of the genes. On the one hand, I agree with Skloot that Myriad has a monopoly. But on the other hand, I insist that a monopoly is not all bad. Myriad’s control over genes will, in effect, develop scientific treatments.
In order to continue surviving as a company, Myriad Genetics must gain some upper hand. They accomplished that by patenting the gene. To get their company started, Myriad needed financial support from private companies. Private companies would not fund a smaller company unless they were different and superior in some way. Myriad’s patent gave them just the control they needed to be seen as fundable. From this example, I want to emphasize how gene patents help scientific growth. If patents on genes were not available, companies like Myriad Genetics would not be able to stand out in a crowd of many gene researchers. People like to be rewarded for what they do, but if the chance of being rewarded for your years of hard work and money are very slim, then scientists may not be
“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.
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.
Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee express opinions about gene patenting and its effect it places on families. Big name companies are able to patent a gene that can potentially cure a person, but at what cost. Crichton and Calfee discuss gene patenting; both agree on cost and lack of research, but disagree on how it changes lives. In the debatable essay Patenting Life by Michael Crichton, he immediately enters the outcome of what may potentially happen to a loved one due to the ability to patent genes.
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.
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.”
Because of the ethical controversies that surround gene patenting, the technology is not widely seen as beneficial to society. However, gene patents are critical to the biotech industry. “Such claims protect therapeutic proteins, like human insulin; Mabs, like Herceptin®; transgenic plants, like insect-resistant corn; and diagnostic probes for genetic diseases, which are the foundation for personalized medicine” (Karny, G. (2007, April 01). In Defense of Gene Patenting | GEN Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News - Biotech from Bench to Business. Retrieved April 02, 2017, from http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/in-defense-of-gene-patenting/2052). A ban on gene patenting would have a large and negative impact on gene-based medical therapies
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.
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.
“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
It is patients’ right to opt for genetic testing on their own DNA, although they are accepting a great risk by doing so.
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 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
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