There are two major types of science, traditional academic research and business influenced science conducted by pharmaceutical and technology companies. James Shreeve discusses these branches of science, the race for the human genome, and prominent figures such as Craig Venter and Francis Collins in The Genome War. Traditional academic research is usually performed at universities and nonprofit organizations with public funding. Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, represents traditional science as his program is dedicated to the enhancement of knowledge for the common good, recognition, and awards. Conversely, science produced by pharmaceutical and technology companies is almost always motivated by the potential profits …show more content…
Historically the free release of data has transformed society’s knowledge of science. In the late 1800s, Gregor Mendel would publish his experiments on pea plant hybridization and heredity in his community’s journal. Although his work would take years to gain recognition, in 1900 “three scientists in three different countries grasped the implications of his paper and cited it in their own.” If Mendel had not published his work because of financial desires, basic questions about heredity may still exist. However, the open platform that the Human Genome Project and Mendel used exponentially benefits science as hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe have complete access to information that may be the missing link in a revolutionary discovery for mankind. Academic researchers can focus solely on science, but private sector science is hindered by the distractions of building profits. Craig Venter would learn this during his experience at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), a nonprofit organization funded by the private company Human Genome Sciences (HGS). According to Shreeve, “If HGS found a gene to be potentially valuable to medicine, it could invoke a special clause granting it up to another year to explore the gene’s commercial value and patent it before Venter could make the data public.”
“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.
Michael Crichton makes a good point when talking about the examples given. The situation dealing with Canavan disease and the Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute is a good example of how gene patenting can block the general population from enjoying a medical advancement. Another example is when Crichton states, “When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it because of patent concerns” (442 par. 12). Gene patenting has a fundamental flaw in it because it is slowing the advancement of modern medicine. Gene patenting blocks researchers from looking into genes that companies own and demands royalties every time the patent is in use. This is a problem that the United States needs to address so that patients can enjoy all the medical advancements that are in reach for the future.
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
Gene technology carries with it social and ethical implications—many of which engender personal views and discussion.
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
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
Scientists like to advertise and show off their research and work. The research of genomes always includes personal questions for
This can be seen is scientist and entrepreneur, Olivier Noel. He is a Haitian born immigrant, who is currently researching and breaking boundaries in the field of genetics. Noel discovered his passion during highschool, excelling in physical sciences like Chemistry. This opened his mind to the world of science, especially genetics, prompting him to immigrate to the U.S and majoring in genetics at Pennsylvania State University. Noel is now the cofounder of DNAsimple, a company that collects DNA (via donated saliva) to increase and shortens the process of genetic research by a hefty amount (dnasimple.org). According to their website, this is done by connecting donated DNA with research scientists, successfully creating a bridge between the supply and high demand of DNA samples. His company has lead to the research and discovery of genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are seen to put women who have these genes mutated, at high risk for breast and ovarian
In June 2000, the publicly funded Human Genome Project (HGP) and the private firm Celera Genomics Inc. announced that they had completed sequencing the human genome. This unprecedented accomplishment is expected to enable doctors to diagnose, treat and even prevent numerous genetic diseases. As these two entities worked on sequencing the human genome, there was also a separate and less publicized race to patent as many human genes as possible.
Beginning in 1856 with Mendel's work on heredity, it tells the story of man’s struggle to decipher the human genome, understand it, and use it for both good and evil. The Gene: An Intimate History also tells the personal story of the Mukherjee family and their
DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic acid. Deoxyribonucleic corrosive is an atom that conveys a large portion of the hereditary guidelines utilized as a part of the improvement, working and propagation of all known living creatures and numerous infections. The National Institutes of Health and Welcome Trust from the London UK and Craig Vendor of Celera Genomics from Maryland USA at the same time exhibited the grouping of human DNA in June of 2000, finishing the first significant attempt of the Human Genome Project (HGP) (Ridley 2). As researchers connection human attributes to qualities fragments of DNA found on one or a greater amount of the 23 human
Before discussion of the ethical, legal and social issues can be successful, some background information is needed. For example, why is the goal of mapping the human genome important? Who is going to benefit or at least be affected by this new
The human genome project is something that I have been very interested with ever since first learning of it. I had heard bits and pieces of what it is about, but my interest was greatly stimulated by Dr. Whited in basic genetics 311 last spring. The discussion that we had regarding the project left me with several ideas and questions about not only the process and ethics involved, but the future of the study of genetics as a whole.