Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gene patenting views essay
Gene patenting views essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gene patenting views essay
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 United States Patent Office awards patents to companies that discover cures, tests, and medical operations for human genes. These patents are in use to compensate these companies for their discovery and encourage them to advance their research and create more medical advancements. Canavan disease is a disorder children inherit that begins to show symptoms at three months; they cannot crawl or walk and they suffer seizures, which result in paralysis and death by adolescence. Parents of these children engage researchers to help create an identification test for Canavan disease by donating tissue and funds. In 1993, the gene receives identification and the families receive a commitment from a New York hospital to offer the test for no cost to patients, but the researcher's employer, Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, patents the gene and refuses to allow any insurance company to offer the test without paying the institute a royalty. Since the parents believe that gene patenting should not exist the absence of their name on the patent gives them no control over the outcome. The idea of personal medication profiling is more in doubt than ever due to the awarding of gene patents to large companies.
In this essay Crichton gives many examples of facts and real life situations in which gene patenting has negative effects on the medical population. Crichton uses tone and word choice to enfor...
... middle of paper ...
...ee. The examples and facts he gives are substantially better than those given by Michael Crichton's “Patenting Life”. Crichton expresses his views in the essay to such an extent that he is visibly on the side of anti-gene patenting throughout the entire essay. This type of writing is not correct because he is trying to write an informative argument. Calfee does not express his view in the essay, but instead, he helps the audience understand view points on both sides.
Works Cited
Crichton, Michael. “Patenting life.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues: Readings across the Discipline. 7th ed. Ed. Katherine Anne Ackley. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage, 2015. 441-442. Print.
Calfee, John. “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues: Readings across the Discipline. 7th ed. Ed. Katherine Anne Ackley. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage, 2015. 443-444. Print.
(7) Hall B. Patents and Patent Policy -. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the Morse H. SETTLEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRIES: ANTITRUST RULES. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD. Valuable patents. Geol.
In the late twentieth century, the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering has positioned itself to become one of the great technological revolutions of human history. Yet, things changed when Herber Boyer, a biochemist at the University of California, founded the company Genentech in 1976 to exploit the commercial potential of his research. Since then the field has exploded into a global amalgam of private research firms developing frivolous, profit-hungry products, such as square trees tailor-made for lumber, without any sort of government regulation.
The first case of Cananvan disease was described in 1931 by Myrtelle Canavan who was one of the first female pathologists. In 1987 a family with two children with Canavan disease sent tissue samples to Reuben Matalon who was a researcher looking for the gene. With those samples he was able to identify the gene 1993. He was able to make a test to help at risk couples that might have a child with the disease. The test was free but in 1997 the Miami Children’s Hospital, which was Dr. Matalon’s employer, patented the gene and claimed everything received from testing. This resulted in the Canavan Foundation withdrawing their testing. The Canavan Foundation later sued the Hospital and the lawsuit was resolved in a sealed out of court session. This case raised the issue of how suitable it is to patent genes.
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
Pharmaceuticals are arguably one of the most contentious of all goods and services traded in the market. While medicines are as much a necessity as foods and water, they require more technical expertise and official approbation in the manufacture. Above all, they carry a moral weight that most market products do not (The Economist, 2014). This idea of moral can be linked to the recurring debate over whether a good health (which is represented by medicines, in this case) should be considered a basic human right, or just a normal commodity. A large portion of such controversy actually lies in an existence of drug patents: should we promote for longer-lasting patents or should we have their duration shortened?
... fight the disease. It is crucial that regulation be a necessary component of gene therapy research and applications. In hopes that the government can regulate and can receive this treatment, not restricting it to people that has serious genetic diseases. Gene therapy will change the field of medicine from what it is today. As scientist discovers more genes and their functions, the potential of this treatment is limitless. Though gene therapy is an auspicious treatment choice for numerous diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the procedure remains precarious and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Thus government regulators and scientist must take a lead role in adopting a practical approach to address these issues and determining the correct procedures for dealing with them.
Rifkin, Jeremy. "The Ultimate Therapy: Commercial Eugenics on the Eve of the Biotech Century." Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 7th ed. Ed.
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
That defective gene could result in a lifelong disease or complication, such as sickle cell disease. If found early it could be prevented or treated, promising that infant a better quality of life. Genetic therapy would be unethical if conducted for any other reason than disease prevention. Scientists and researchers believes that gene therapy could be modified to augment and heighten precise characteristics, which without the technology are uncontrollable, such as an individual’s aptitude, strength, athleticism, eye color, hair color, skin color, height, or gender (Designer Babies, 2017). The ethical determinants considered in the implication of gene therapy has caused a worldwide discussion. Those who follow and sustain this biotechnology argue for the prevention of disease and restricting conditions and for a global enhanced quality of life. On the other hand, those who detract genetic therapy, reason that it will generate superior individuals, with one-sided adaptations and hinders with mother nature’s life
United States. President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness: A Report of the President's Council on Bioethics. New York: Dana Press, 2003. Print.
3. Macer, DRJ. 1990. Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using New Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture. Obtained from the WWW: http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/SG14.html
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.