Why Do Our Genes Have Anything?

Throughout our lifetime we are in constant change, many of those changes are ones that you don’t notice. However permanent we set a change to ourselves, one thing we hardly notice change is our DNA. Just growing recently in popularity is genetic engineering , along with its immense potential which can do very much for us, in the future and today. However, with all the potential that genetic engineering carries many people have begun to resent what genetic engineering could become instead of focusing on the great capabilities, and what lies ahead of its bright future. Regardless of what others believe, Genetic engineering will renovate the way we do things today, genetic engineering is a tremendous step to accept, and without a doubt a step

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

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.

The Declaration of Independence describes individual rights as “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Congress). These inalienable rights are threatened by genetic modification. Specifically, Tony Wang, in his research on the ethics of genetic

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.”

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

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

Bioengineered humans are becoming a reality, with almost limitless possibilities for future generations. Gregory Stock takes an optimistic stance on “Germinal choice [technologies]” in his article Choosing our Genes, while comparing the medical lives we live today to the potential lives lead by future generations that receive the advantages of germinal choice. Germinal choice technologies as define by Stock are “a whole realm of technologies by which parents influence the genetic constitutions of their children at the time of their conception.”

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

(Glenn, Linda MacDonald, Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics) There are many social and fundamental issues about genetically engineering organisms. The genetic modifyification of animal and human DNA results, intentionally or not, possesses degrees of intelligence or sentience never before tested. Instead of seeing the ‘subject’ of the experiment as a person or animal, they strip them of their rights and think of them as objects. Professor Nemur and Doctor Strauss did not care what happened to Charlie, as long as he provided the information and data they needed to make money and achieve fame. Social and legal controls should be placed on research like this. Who has the right to access these technologies and how will scarce resources (such as medical advances and novel treatments) be given out to experiment

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.

What if a company could privately own something that naturally occurred in a body. Not some foreign object put into someone, but something that's part of their DNA. Now what if they had a deadly disease and were not allowed to donate their tissue for research because a company owned that specific disease gene. A Harvard graduate, Michael Crichton, who wrote “Patenting Life” and American Enterprise Institute scholar, John E. Calfee, who wrote “Decoding The Use Of Gene Patents”, argue the pros and cons of gene patenting. Crichton and Calfee disagree on the major key points on gene patenting.

We have technology everywhere in all aspects from organ transplants to digital and social media, the internet and cell phones and so much more. All of these technologies have helped us improve as a species and evolve at a rapid pace over the last few decades. We can quickly connect, get information and decide on which choices to make. More and more we realize the importance of personal health, healthy food, and the health of the planet. Technology in Genetics is moving front and center, gaining a higher profile than it has ever previously had. The GMO has brought about changes in resources for food and medicine and even animals. The controversy both for and against combined with mixed unclear information make it a bit of a double edge sword

More than four thousand human genes are patented in the U.S, and the drug company Incyte based in Palo Alto, California calms two thousand of those genes (Lovgren). Gene patenting is a relatively new concept and a controversial one at that. Many scholars have very strong opinions on this topic. Two of these scholars being: Harvard graduate and novelist Michael Crichton and a former resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and staff economist John E. Calfee. Both scholars have written extremely compelling essays on the topic. Crichton’s essay “Patenting Life”, gives an overview of his adverse opinion towards gene patenting and provides evidence to support his opinion. Former AEI scholar Calfee also provides his opinion on

When thinking about patents, many of us wonder how anyone can patent genes that all of us have carried since we were born. U.S patent law allows inventors to claim new and useful machines, processes, and objects as proprietary creations. This privilege, however, has not been extended to naturally occurring phenomena, such as elements in the periodic table. However, a legal precedent now allows human genes to be patented. In order to study genes, scientists have to isolate and manipulate genes in the laboratory. Thus, in the eyes of patent law, genes are treated just as any other man-made chemical ( Regalado 50). On the strength of this logic, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has been issuing patents to genetic discoveries since the 1970s. Human growth-hormone, insulin, erythropoietin-protein drugs with billions of dollars in combined sales are all manufactured using patented DNA sequences.