The Pros And Cons Of Gene Patents

The United States Patent Office awards patents to companies that discover cures, tests, and medical operations for human genes. These patents are in use to compensate these companies for their discovery and encourage them to advance their research and create more medical advancements. Canavan disease is a disorder children inherit that begins to show symptoms at three months; they cannot crawl or walk and

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.

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

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 Dr.’s view on gene patents is the halt they put on testing and studying of genes and current studies to find a major breakthrough for the disease. (441) It is not only fair to the researchers who spend their lives trying to develop a cure but also to the loved ones and

Competition amongst researchers intensified and instead of collaborating with each other, they kept their research restricted, in hopes of striking it rich someday. As an example, there are currently 4,875 U.S. patents for Lyme disease in comparison to 808 for Parkinson’s disease, or 2,148 for Alzheimer 's disease. (Due to the similarity in symptoms, and the unknown cause of both Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease, some believe it is really just Lyme disease.) Nevertheless, with all the interest in a “hard to catch and easy to cure” disease like Lyme, the number of patents cannot be ignored; patents equal money.

There are many reasons for the scientific community as well as the citizens of America to be concerned and very opposed to the patenting of genes. For example, on the American Medical Association Website it reads that “ The AMA is opposed to gene patenting because it has the potential to inhibit access to genetic testing for patients and hinder research on genetic disease.” Another problem is that often enough people are harmed when patent holders prevent laboratories from developing and offering competing tests. As a matter of fact, there are occasions in which people are left falsely diagnosed due to limited testing, occurrences lacey refers to as “false negatives” and “false positives”; a false negative being a situation in which medical tests come back negative due to errors in testing, and false positives being situations in which major often dangerous unnecessary procedures are done due to errors in

“Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research”. Nature Biotechnology 27, 36 - 40

Ideally a patent is not supposed to give monopoly over an idea to an inventor unless the idea is useful to the public. Thus, a gene should be shown to be capable of being useful to the public in the form of new products or treatment, before anyone should be able to patent it.

Gene Technology relates to the understanding of gene expressions, taking advantage of natural genetic variation, the modification of genes and the transfer of Genes to new hosts. Gene technology has the potential to be used to benefit members of society, it can however be taken too far. It can be used to potentially stop genetic diseases. Scientists and doctors are now able to save lives by injecting genes into sufferers of life-threatening genetic diseases and save their lives. Gene technology also allows us to determine whether a child will be born with a genetic disease and gives parents the chance to abort the child before it is born. It also allows us to choose the sex of our potential child. Both of these things bring up major ethical issues and the law

Speaker and class; today, we will be discussing the topic of patents and why the answer would be YES. Today, I will state the three main reasons why we should not ban patents, and how the world would be much easier with them. My first point will be about freedom, and how people have the right to their inventions with no serious competition. My second point will be about credibility, and how people deserve it for their own creations. Finally, my last point will be about patent’s similarity to copyright, and why both are important, and both serve a great purpose. Having patents give people a right to their creations, and should be given credit for what they created. Having someone else steal your invention shouldn’t be allowed. People work hard on their inventions, not just so they get their glory stolen by other copycats. If patents are removed, people will not feel they should invent anything, or at least anything to bring to the public, in fear of their hard work stolen. Patents will protect those fears. As copyright is for books, patents are for physical machines, etc. Both give the creator/author the right to their own makings, and both give the creator a chance to earn

How can scientist patent life? The truth is that over 4,300 human genes were patented by biotechnology companies until June of 2013. This ethical matter was brought to the Supreme Court’s attention and their decision brought both victory and sorrow and failed to provide clear guidance on this subject. Gene patents have both positive and negative effects on patients, community, scientists, and medical progress. Gene patents aren’t only about the rights of patients, but also about scientific freedom, and advancement in medical research. The question remains: "Is it ethical to patent genes?"

To achieve this goal, the paper has been organized into four sections. The first section discusses what gene patenting is and some of the events that took place prior to gene patenting. The second section includes some of the benefits of having a gene patent and how it can help people with some diseases. The third section explains the risks of having a gene patent. Some of the companies that hold patents and do nothing will impact people who need help. In the last section discusses what could be done to improve gene patenting and how it will help humanity. Before staring the paper a historical context is provided so one can understand how it all started.

“There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” This quote by Jonas Salk, the researcher who invented the polio vaccine in the height of the polio scare, demonstrates the natural resistance people have to patents on biological agents. If society can grant individuals or small groups of individuals the exclusive rights to the production and use of biological agents in the form of a patent, the morality of such patents must be taken into consideration. David Resnik’s adaption of Marx’s theories of economic exploitation to a biomedical setting can be used to determine whether biological patents are moral. According to Resnik, “A exploits B if and only if 1) A takes advantage of B and 2)