Gene Patent Controversy

Chapter 25 – 1976-1988 – This chapter details the history of patenting living organisms — 1980 Supreme Court ruling which declared that Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty could patent a bacterium genetically engineered to consume oil and to help clean up oil spills.

“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.

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.

I really enjoyed your post as I did not know it was possible to patent a gene. I really liked the examples you gave as it helped me understand what it means for a gene to be patent and what it affects it can have on the patient and their family. I believe this is something that should not be legal as if someone else can find a cure for diseases instead of the organization who owns it they should be allowed to do so.

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.”

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.

Because of the ethical controversies that surround gene patenting, the technology is not widely seen as beneficial to society. However, gene patents are critical to the biotech industry. “Such claims protect therapeutic proteins, like human insulin; Mabs, like Herceptin®; transgenic plants, like insect-resistant corn; and diagnostic probes for genetic diseases, which are the foundation for personalized medicine” (Karny, G. (2007, April 01). In Defense of Gene Patenting | GEN Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News - Biotech from Bench to Business. Retrieved April 02, 2017, from http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/in-defense-of-gene-patenting/2052). A ban on gene patenting would have a large and negative impact on gene-based medical therapies

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

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

According to the First Patent Act passes in 1790, a patentable invention or discovery must be artificial, non-obvious, novel and useful. Current gene patents, refer to DNA sequences with a known function or use that are altered in some way from their form inside a cell.( Ricki Lewis (1997) So patented gene is different from its intracellular counterpart in that it is no longer part of a chromosome. When something was isolated from its original natural state, it’s no longer a natural product, something artificial is created. The isolated gene sequence is not nature anymore. Also, DNA sequence can be the protein –encoding portion of gene, gene on chromosomes, and patentable genes do not necessary come from human. For these reasons, I think the researchers or Biotechnology Company may patent DNA. Some argument about “gene patent” include potentially limited access, no second opinion opportunities, no price competition and less incentive to improve the gene test. (David H. Ledbetter (2008) These investigators are concerning about the accuracy and affordability of gene test.

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.

Gene patenting is giving the sole rights to the inventor of a certain sequence of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or Ribonucleic acid (RNA), which are the mapping of our human code. It has also become a bioethical concern that many people may agree or disagree with gene patents. The major concerns with such controversial topic are the handling of such gene patents by the The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), how owners of patents can charge whatever they want, and how a gene patent can halt research. Michael Crichton (1942-2008) was an author, critic, and film producer. John E. Calfee (1941-2011) was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for sixteen years as well as a staff economist

On the last years, genetic technology have been improving. The research carried out in this area are focused on the early diagnosis of diseases. Moreover, manipulation of genes in the future provides a critical tool for eliminating fatal diseases to humans. Also humans will be able to manipulate genes from birth. But the real question is although can be perform it, we allow it? Everything possible is ethically permissible? Some dramatic demonstrations of genetic modification have been made with mice and other animals, however, evidence in humans are generally considered outside the ethical boundaries. Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA and author of Redesigning Humans, in his article “Choosing Our Genes” (2012) argues the use of technology to change humans genetic in order to avoid imperfections or diseases. Stock shows genetic engineering as a very useful technology and that applying it on the future to humans, positive results they will gain. Stocks article is effective, since he gives good reasons why using genetic technology would provide several benefits that people wish to have.

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

This weeks discussion seems to be disheartening with respect to our legal system and allowing patents such as these to even be allowed. Like you said, everyone that wants to do research to find a cure for breast or colon cancer should be allowed. Do you think that Myriad Genetics just wants recognition for the discovery, if it happens, or is it all about money? I feel it is all about money. A man had his cancerous spleen removed at the University of California. In turn the University removed the cells from his spleen and found that they could be used to produce valuable proteins. They got a patent on these cells. The man then wanted his cells returned and the California Supreme Court denied him rights and royalties to his cells because