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.
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.
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.
Lucassen, Emy. “Teaching the ethics of genetic engineering” Journal of Biological Education 29 (Summer 1995): 129-139.
Kevles, Daniel J. and Leroy Hood. "Will the Human Genome Project Lead to Abuses In Genetic Engineering?" Taking Sides. Ed. Thomas A. Easton. Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group Inc., 1995. 342-357.
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
Gene patenting is a very controversial topic that have many scientists and researchers facing issues with their work. The patenting of genes raise many flags in the science world. Some examples of these cons of gene patenting are as follows. With all of this new technology coming out every day the government has a hard time regulated the work of these companies. The most controversial topic in gene patenting is that you can’t patent something found in nature. The final dispute about gene patenting is that those who patent the genes first have a monopoly on this gene, halting others from working with it. Gene patents should not be help by companies due to, halts in research, lack of monitoration, and the fact that you can’t patent something
“If you patent a discovery which is unique, say a human gene or even just one particular function of a human gene, then you are actually creating a monopoly, and that's not the purpose of the world of patents” (John Sulston). The articles “Patenting Life” by Michael Crichton, and “Decoding The Use of Gene Patents” written by John E. Calfee talk about the patenting of genes. Crichton and Calfee both discuss the different views on gene patenting. Crichtons position is against gene patents, while Calfee feels gene patents are beneficiary. Furthermore, the authors disagree with their views of gene patents. They have different views about the cost of the gene patent tests, the privacy of a person’s genes, and research of gene patenting.
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. University of Chicago Press.
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
In September 14, 1990, an operation, which is called gene therapy, was performed successfully at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. The operation was only a temporary success because many problems have emerged since then. Gene therapy is a remedy that introduces genes to target cells and replaces defective genes in order to cure the diseases which cannot be cured by traditional medicines. Although gene therapy gives someone who is born with a genetic disease or who suffers cancer a permanent chance of being cured, it is high-risk and sometimes unethical because the failure rate is extremely high and issues like how “good” and “bad” uses of gene therapy can be distinguished still haven’t been answered satisfactorily.
...r, human genetic engineering is not immoral; the failure to use such a technology is truly what is unjust. To negate the resolution is to turn a person away from a possible cure, from a chance to prolong life. I have shown that human genetic engineering can improve the health of the society by both curing disease and prolonging live. Both benefits are worthy goals of any just society. These possible benefits of genetic engineering, those of curing disease and prolonging life, outweigh any possible "side-effects" that may occur with the development of any new technology. But we must remember that we do not rush into any new technology; human genetic engineering will be done carefully as with any technology, so that we may maximize the benefits of such a great gift to society. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."
In conclusion, claiming possession of someone's genes is like taking an ownership of a part of their body. Patenting genes is unethical and causes for a significant amount of the population to be unable to afford medical treatment. Genes are part of nature, and not man-made inventions which should be protected.
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.