The Pros And Cons Of Human Genetic Patents

We cannot obtain a “Yes” or “No” answer on “Will the Supreme Court’s decision affect the amount of research that is conducted to find naturally occurring disease-causing DNA sequences”. It is because the statue is clearly stated that things that are created or invented can be applied to obtain a patent when those things are (1) novel, (2) useful, and (3) nonobvious (Cheeseman, 2015, P.135). Although discovering the disease-causing DNA sequences cannot be patented, the medicine or drug formulation on curing based on the related research can apply for a patent because it is an “invention”.

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.

Although the need to protect R & D investment is recognized, there appears to be a need to modernize the laws around intellectual property. What if the original patent owner is unable to continue development in a timely fashion, or chooses to withhold development of a product? Should the patent remain with the owner for the full amount of time if they are unable or choose not to produce an item that has a significant potential to improve lives, public safety or advance technology? What about

Proponents of patent reform largely focus on the cost of patent infringement litigation to the U.S. economy and companies. While some argue that the type of patents issued should be limited in order to uphold the intent of Article I, Section 8, others claim that standards for issuing patents should be strengthened in order to reduce the number of costly patent infringement lawsuits. The cost of litigation and standards for issuing a patent is the focus of the proceeding text and justification for patent reform in the United States.

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

“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.

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

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.

Imagine this you're a scientist about to make a groundbreaking discovery finding the gene to cure HIV but, you get hit with a lawsuit because a gene was previously patented. All research is stopped by law and due to the patent you give up your research and if that is not enough you have to pay over $3,000 in royalties which leads to giving up on the project. “Patenting Life” (2007) writer Michael Crichton,, a well educated man in the medical field earning his degree from Harvard Medical School,, is trying to end yet, on the other hand “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” (2009) John E. Calfee an economist believes Gene Patents are beneficiary and not harmful. Crichton and Calfee disagree in many ways being halt on research, worrying about a

Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee explain the factors and outcomes that have come from gene patents. While Crichton is against these patents, suggesting that patents are a barrier to research and increase the cost of medical expenses, Calfee refutes these ideas; furthermore, the authors disagree as to whether genes meet the criteria for a patent to begin with (Crichton, paras. 1-13) (Calfee, paras. 1-6).

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.

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element of novelty, must show “an inventive step”, and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act, 1970 defines “inventive step” as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common general knowledge that exists while

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

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.