The Pros And Cons Of The Biotechnology Revolution

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.

“Biotechnology has been used for more than 6,000 years for lots of interesting and practical purposes: making food such as bread and cheese, preserving dairy products and fermenting beer” (Biotechnology - Promising a Brighter Future for the World). Although we do not always realize it, biotechnology is a huge part of our everyday lives, from the medicine we use to keep us healthy, the fuel we use to take us where we need to go, and even the food we eat and the sources it comes from, biotechnology already plays, and must continue to play, an invaluable role in meeting our needs. Biotechnology uses cellular and bio-molecular processes to develop technologies and products that help improve our

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.

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

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

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.

Scientists continue to find new ways to insert genes for specific traits into plant and animal DNA. A field of promise—and a subject of debate—genetic engineering is changing the food we eat and the world we live in.

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.

(1.) Xu, W., Li, M., Ding, J., Gu, J., & Luo, Z. (2014). Bacteria dominate the ammonia-oxidizing community in a hydrothermal vent site at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge of the South Atlantic Ocean. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 98(18), 7993. doi:10.1007/s00253-014-5833-1

Controversy. Often heard on the news and found plastering the headlines of shady websites. However, there is none more associated with the word than the practice of genetically modifying organisms. Ever since the Industrial Revolution,the shift from manual labor to steam power, technology has developed at an accelerated pace, paving the way for greater innovation. Recently, the emergence of Biotechnology from the study of DNA has allowed for the creation of GMOs, organisms whose genes has been edited in order to express a certain trait. GMOs are most commonly used in agriculture, often designed for herbicide resistance or pesticide creation. Due to Media overreaction and false studies, the public has been whipped into a frenzy, demanding scientists

A man by the name of John Locke once said “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” These wise words may still and eternally be applied to our law system as a basis for our human rights and improvement. As of relatively recent times these basic political ideals have been challenged through the arise of genetic patents. These patents have stripped researchers from their ability to further investigate certain, often vital, sections of DNA. Additionally, these patents have placed many small family owned farms at a particular disposition. Companies such as Myriad Genetics and Monsanto are challenging our freedom, and rights to own property.

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

If researchers and institutions have complete control over cells once extracted, then research and understanding of medicine, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and genetic markers can significantly advance. Currently, courts have favored this course of action, as demonstrated in Moore v. Regents of the University of California. Additionally, there are no property rights in corpuses (Yang, Y et al 2011). This advocates for the continuation for the asymmetrical power given towards researchers and large biotech companies. This would benefit researchers, large research institutions and their contributors, and pharmaceutical companies while discriminating the patient’s right to know what occurs to their genetic information, the most personal aspect that makes them human. The consequence

Most of the promises made by these corporations are promises of luxury, not necessity, and carry an inherently and dangerous risk. As science continues to understand further the basic element of life, DNA, the danger involved genetically modifying organisms becomes apparent. The beneficial potential genetic engineering brings are attractive, but paradoxically it also brings disastrous potential at a greater degree. The qualities brought forth by these GM foods are not necessary for our survival and only brings forth dangerous consequences to our health, environment, and economy. In order to

Since 2.3 billion people will be added to the world from 2009 to 2050, biotechnology- Genetically Modified Organism- is a must to combat the global food crisis(Weisser para. 2). When the United States developed Bt corn, “[they] have been genetically engineered to resist herbicides and pests and even withstand drought.”(para. 16). Unlike corn that have never been modified, the Bt corn were able to survive better because of their resistant to herbicides, pests, and drought; resulting, a corn that can survive in harsh environment. By creating a modified corn that can survive in harsh environment, a large supply of corn- food- can be produced. If biotechnology can genetically modified corn to survive in harsh condition, more food can be produced; resulting 2.3 billion people can be fed; therefore, addressing the global food crisis. To put it briefly, limiting biotechnology would prevent addressing the global food crisis. Not only can genetic engineering address the global food crisis, but it can also improve medicine