The Pros And Cons Of Gene Patents

The barrier to enter Biotechnology industry is high. The first barrier is the extensive requirements in funding coming from heavy expenditures in R&D, along with the risk of little to no returns or even heavy losses if the drug fails to reach the market. Regulatory environment partly contributes to the barrier as the new drug approval process can be time-consuming with relatively 89% of failure to pass through. The second barrier is specialization. Companies with knowledge in obscure diseases will enjoy low threat of new entrant for there are few experts in the field.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction A patent is a right, a monopoly of limited duration, in most cases it is for 20 years. It is a right that prohibits other persons from making, using, selling or importing an invention. An invention is one thing, a way of doing something, which is new, useful, and which does not already exist in nature in the same form. There are several types of patent, but the one we are interested in is the biological patent, which is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that allows the patent holder to prevent others from making it from using it, selling it or importing it. The regulation of biological patents varies from country to country and may include biological technologies and products. Genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The patents of each country are valid only for that country. Thus, a Canadian patent is only valid in Canada and has no application in Germany and may contain specific rights, different from German patents. Each country grants its own patents, but there are several broad principles that are common to all patent systems. A set of international agreements establishes certain general standards that apply to patents; such as the duration of the monopoly, the

For example these patents may make it difficult for other scientists or organizations to come up with new innovations that can help crops become more nutritional green etc.

This paper will be broken down into two main sections by the controversies and advancements in biotechnology. It will also end with a brief summary of my opinion on the use of biotechnology in modern day society and why I believe so. I will also add an additional works cited page that contains the URLs to all of the sources I received my information

believe gene patents should be banned. In this essay, I will outline arguments for and

However, one problem is that the evidence on the cumulative impact of patents is weak. Mainly due to the problem of finding an environment that can measure the impact. How do you measure innovation, measure follow-up innovations or applications? They take advantage of the fact that the human genome and the sequenced genes are patentable. The benefit of this setting is that the gene itself has a unique identifier that the researcher can use to identify whether it is subject to patent claims. This is as good as it gets for the measurement of innovation.

Gene patenting impedes the experimentation. It gives the person who owns the genes rights on the genome sequence from a time frame of about 17 to 20 years, people don't believe that it would hold up future research. For instance Myriad Genetics own gene variants, BRCA1 and BRCA2 which are associated to hereditary ovarian and breast cancer (they only own it to do tests and make discoveries for plausible future cures). This gives the corporation the privilege to make ground breaking discoveries that other genome companies can't, missing out on a potential paramount revelations on the acquired gene. Patented genes could possibly cause medical diagnosis delay. Companies who have exclusive power to assess, evaluate and research on that specific gene and if a patient has testing done on that same gene, a fragment of the gene must be sent to the company in order for it to be tested. Thus, causing a delay in the medical results. Monopolies between companies causing massive disputes against opposing competitors. The monopoly then can determine if other companies can get a hold of the gene or keep it for themselves. But other disputes about gene patenting is if a specific patented gene test that had some kind of diagnostics or therapy which was considered medically necessary, patients would have a no option but to procure those medications or testing

Science as I had stated before in one of my previous writing is the engine to prosperity. Therefore, limiting the process of scientific discoveries and innovation to a few individual companies in the name of patent is equivalent to staling modernity. That being said, I do agree that patenting has some positivity that comes with it especially in DNA research. Researchers need to make profits out of their hard work of discoveries and innovation through the process of patenting i.e no one else should harvest from where they never invested anything. And the only way to manage the situation is through patenting or enforcing strict government policies that protect through scientists from the fake ones. On the other hand, If we all patent everything and anything we do, modifying organisms,

It allows unique segments of DNA, which perhaps code for a certain disease or a certain protein, to be owned by an individual or corporation. In “Patenting Life” (2007), Crichton says, “Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing” (441). Crichton explains that the patented gene cannot be examined and limited to the patent holder to charge any price for a test. Calfee agrees with this assertion by pointing out that “a gene patent gives a seller a monopoly over a product, that product will be sold at monopoly prices” (Calfee 444).

Food patents are like any other, there with the intention to protect the inventor’s rights over their intellectual property. Patents for recipes and cooking methods are beneficial to their creator without directly harming anyone else, however, patents for plants can be a different story. According to Oregon State University Extension Service patents on plant varieties disallows the user to reproduce from plant cuttings but sexual reproduction is legal. This is more promising than the laws for patented seeds such as those enforced by Monsanto. Food is a necessary good and depending on a single source can be dangerous for a society. If the major agricultural suppliers choose to use the patented seeds then a sudden decrease in quantity supplied

Techniques, like “[plant] cell culture, recombinant DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid] technology and cellular cloning, [would] now provide us with new ways to tap into natural diversity”(Seidler para. 3). To put it another way, biotechnology could provide new medicines. New medicines could eliminate side effect and eradicate repeated visit for injection in treatment for diseases or cancer(Christopher para. 4). Therefore, limiting biotechnology would hinder the process of creating new medicine. Medine would not be the only one affected in the medical field, but in addition, diseases could be

The concept of product patent for pharmaceutical products is likely to make life saving medicine beyond the reach of the poor and deprived section of the society around the world.