Gene Ownership. Free Essay

The subject of biological patents has been controversial since it began nearly 30 years ago. Biological patents are patents on inventions on the field of biology including genetically modified organisms and genetic materials (Merz & Cho, 2005). These patents grant the holders exclusivity on an invention for a limited period of time preventing others from making, using, selling or importing the said invention (Merz & Cho, 2005). The scope and reach of biological patent vary from country to country, state to state. The article is a true representation of what is going on in the field of biochemistry. Gene patenting has both positive and negative effects and people hold divided opinions on whether it is ethical.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

I do agree with Chief Justice Warren Burger that gene patenting is not unethical but rather necessary (Campbell et al, 2017). Genes that have been modified by man, like all other things under the sun made by man are patentable. The article has however failed to highlight many of the key ethical issues surrounding the gene ownership debate. According to the article more than 20% of human genome have been patented with the largest holder of scientific patents begin the University of California with more than a 1000 patents (Campbell et al, 2017). This only shows us how widespread the issue of gene patterning is and how it all affects us.

Naturally occurring gene are not patentable but rather purified DNA containing the sequence of the gene and the technique that allow the study of the gene (Campbell et al, 2017). This statement means that gene patents are only granted to specific isolated (purified) gene sequences and the processes that were used to obtain it. All genetically modified organisms including bacteria, seeds, viruses, plants, and cells are patentable. Gene patents may claim the isolated/purified natural gene sequence, the use of the sequence for medical purposes or a natural sequence that has been altered to make it more useful. A patent can claim multiple genes and one gene can receive multiple patents.

The patenting of genes was allowed in December 1980 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amanda Chakrabarty in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty. This decision however faced wide criticism from religious leaders, health practitioners and researchers for many years. In June 2013, the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision ruling against Myriad Genetics, holding that human genes could not be patented (Campbell et al, 2017). This court ruling held that naturally occurring DNA is a product of nature and is not patentable merely because it is isolated. The ruling put an end to the long-standing misguided US Patent and Trademark policies on gene patenting that allowed patents to be issued on naturally occurring "isolated" DNA sequences. The ruling caused a significant shift in the gene patenting landscape and even lead to the formation of a bill that is yet to be passed (Campbell et al, 2017).

The patenting of genes/DNA excepted to significantly impact science and medicine over the next 30 years. One of the areas to be affected is the cost of genetic tests and genetic therapy. As innovators continue to take ownership of genes, the costs of genetic therapies and genetic testing are expected to get unacceptably high by stifling competition. Another major concern is the cost and availability of medicine. Gene patents are said to inhibit research and biomedical innovation by blocking scientists' access to genes and genetic materials. Some fear that holders of biogenetic patents may exploit the people in order to make large profits and the expense of healthcare patients, farmers and other users of the patented technologies (Marchant, 2007). One way that countries are trying to minimize these negative effects of gene patenting is by limiting the scope of gene patents.

The patenting of gene is a controversial topic when it comes to bioethics. Many professionals hold opposing opinions and some believe that patenting of living material is unethical since this material occurs naturally and therefore should not be patented (Marchant, 2007). Those opposed to patenting of genetic material believe that patenting this material is undermining the dignity of people and animals by treating life as a commodity. Others believe that not allowing patenting on biotechnological inventions is itself unethical (Merz & Cho, 2005). Research requires money and patents provide investors and researchers with a way to recover tangible gains from their investments. According to these believers, gene patents do not stifle research but rather fuel it.

Apart from the actual patterning of genes many other things on the topic raise ethical concerns. Some of these areas of concern include how the gene samples are obtained, how the patents are used post-issuance and using patents to increase profit. (Marchant, 2007) To collect gene samples prior consent is required not only from the individual but also at national and community levels. There have been many cases were consent has not been obtained from all three levels. Another issue is the issue of profit sharing between the collector and the population from whom the sample came. Apart from the profit-sharing issue, is it even ethical to be making profits from gene patents? Commercializing gene innovations can result to the exploitation of the people and an increase in healthcare (Marchant, 2007).

Another issue of ethical concern is the use of gene samples and data collection. 23andMe, a genetic testing company recently made a multi-million-dollar deal to sell access to its customer database to pharmaceutical and biotech companies (Marchant, 2007). The company offered affordable genetic testing and had their patients consent to having the company share their genetic information with third parties. It was however clear that most of these did not know that the company was going to sell their genetic information. The use of the collected genetic information is thus a major issue of concern.

References

Campbell, M. K, Farrell S. O. & McDougal O. M. (2017). Biochemistry (9th Ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Marchant, G. E. (2007). Genomics, Ethics and Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A handbook of Best Practices, 1(5), 29-38.

Merz, J. F. & Cho M. K. (2005). What are gene patents and why are people worried about them? Community Genetics, 8(4), 203-208.