TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

I agree that a monopoly is exactly what this is. A monopoly on the genetic market. As you previously stated, there are some benefits to private and public companies monetary-wise, but it is a travesty to the medical community; to the many patients and people who might succumb to their genetically based illnesses because of the selfish “hogging” or patenting of one company. Knowledge is a privelige that we as humans should feel blessed, and grateful that our abilities concerning cognition, reason and our intellectual discoveries set us apart from every other species inhabiting the planet. Gene patenting might have a few benefits for companies but it is wrong to withold this valuable information, thereby making it a crime against the human race overall.

Some of the patenting could really help the economy right now. Even though it is not ethical to patent genes present in all life, exclusive synthesized genes for biological study or medical examinations could be brought more public through patents. The founder could also reap a benefit from the discovery.

In the case of this particular scientific advancement, I believe that a patent was justly placed.
The company had every right to claim ownership of the bacterial development because it was just that… a development. However I do not agree with some of the established guidelines encompassing a patent. If their is a possibilty of building on and improving upon the patented product then there should not be any restrictions on that knowledge.

I competely afree with Hannah. Companies get in trouble all the time because of monopolies and just because this isn’t a computer or a product of technology doesn’t mean it cannot be monopolized. It makes companies able to charge outragous prices for tests that could be helpful but cannot be accessed because they are too expensive.

It should be illegal to patent a gene. With this patent in place it will be more difficult to strive forward with research as one company would be preventing others from making giant leaps in genetic history that would help everyone just because they have a patent on something that is part of nature. Genes are something so specific and personal that no one person should have any rights to them, that would be like holding rights to hands that have an extra finger or two. It is unethical and should be stopped immediately.

With monopolies in any business the quality of the product is at risk. This is dangerous in the medical world because one test can be developed and there will be no drive to make it better because there is no competition. Also the price can be whatever the producer chooses. The medical world should not be allowed to have monopolies because it puts the public at risk and they are depending on these advances with their lives.

I feel like I nerd, but I already knew this. It is a major plot point in “Jurassic Park”. It talks about the laws of incerting genes to make it your own “man made genes” and how that counts as a invention a little bit. Now I ain’t gonna go into all of that, but I always think it is interesting when fiction uses facts like that.

I think this initially sounds a little silly- but if a person spends thousands of dollars developing a certain gene, it wouldn’t be morally right if it was legal for someone to just steal their gene combination and sell it themselves. Plus, the funny thing with the gene system is that there’s more then one way to skin a DNA strand; that one guy may have made his oil eating bacteria one way, but who’s to say it can’t be made differently?

First of all Gabrielle, we all know that “Jurassic Park” was based on a true story, so i’m not sure what you’re talking about fiction, but this is besides the point.

Of course we can get into major debates about the free market of the U.S. and how every company has the right to patent a development etc. etc. But I personally do not agree with this. When are companies going to learn to stop being greedy and proud of their accomplishments and share their ideas for the betterment of the advancement of biotechnology?
Don’t we all remember Barney the big purple dinosaur? Clean up, clean up, everybody do your share.
When we all work together, we can advance at a much greater pace.

Well I will start off by asking one simple question…
What is that cape for? Are we going to the Opera? I don’t think tho…

2 questions… sorry

Now let’s get down to business.

I’m sure that in the universe of patent laws that there are subdivisions within every patent. For every patent, there are mini-patents that include the scenario explained in paragraph 6. So I’m sure that if an SNP were to be found that may reveal an historic phenomenon, like the observance of the sequence difference in the DNA of the one Indian man in “Journey of Man,” then some filing would have to be done so that the patent that already exists is not violated.

Of course though now and days there’s a patent for everything so what’s the point of searching for new discoveries.

It is beginning to get pretty ridiculous how companies are holding the knowledge about certain aspects of the human genome and expecting other researchers to simply pay up. Soon all of these patent laws will be abolished and the shackles, that were once engulfing themselves around all of the greedy companies of the world, will be broken by Thor’s hammer! *AKA da government.
The government will get rid of these patents and everyone use their studies to advance mankind in the world of genetic engineering.

Now that was a long blog post.

Clearlly any withholding of crucial scientific or even medical information is extortion. Such information shoudl be free to everyone- knowledge is, after all, free. We gain knowledge everyday only at the expense of furthering the community’s education. We don’t have to pay for school to learn something. Heck we don’t even have to read in order to learn. But essential knowledge such as the information of particular genes that could help patients with specific conditions should be shared without reservation. Anything short of the latter would severly hinder progress within the scientific community; they’d be much too tied up in lawsuits and ethical prosecution from the media and the public.

I think it is wrong to patent a gene since it si not something which someone made, but found. Patenting a gene is like me finding a plant, not engineering one, and getting a patent on it. For exmple if i descovered apples and got a patent making me the only able to grow and sell them. Definetily wrong to put patents on things found, and not created.

I think that one should be able to have a patent on a product of genes such as genetically engineered bacteria or biogenetic computer chips, but patenting something like a gene, a naturally occuring trait is wrong. The application of this gene should be able to be patented though, for instance the creation of the oil eating bacteria is a product of genetic engineering an dnot naturally occuring. It was not found and was actually created and therefore patentable.

I found it interesting that the purpose of patenting specific genes is to force the disclosure of secret information, as opposed to the common idea that its primary purpose is to make someone rich. The mere fact that what is being patented is present in all life only adds to the controversy.

The unusual civil liberties argument presented by Ms. Girard proves to be a landmark case. Apparently, Myriad Genetics argues that the patent yields to temporary monopoly, and essentially research and development. But what good would the research and development be if people of today’s society cannot even get a second opinion in the form of this test?

As previously stated, a patent on a gene has more to do with the disclosure of secret information than money. Before, patents were allowed for artificial inventions or discoveries. After Diamond v. Chakrabarty, however, patents were established for life forms. The compromise that most scientists find acceptable deals with “process patents”–offsetting patents on molecules…question is, will this compromise be met?

First of all, we live in America. It is a land of oppurtunity, which means if someone wants to work hard and discover something, and then make a monopoly out of their success, they are allowed to. Saying this, the gene patent, I will agree, is a more sensitive issue. Patenting a gene seems like a very obscure conscept to me, especially when it is something that a lot of organisms share. I agree that witholding knowlegde is not the greatest moral decision that these people could have made, but I do believe that they have the right to do it.

This is a very itneresting idea. When i was reading up until this point, I was thinking “why in the world would anyone want to patent a gene? what would be the reasoing for this”. But now, this makes more sense and I can see how this could be beneficial.

I dont think the new SNP sequence would be patented under the same law as the original DNA sequence. In this case, i dont think it is in violation of the patent law and could be an opprotunity for a new patent. However, this also depends on how broad the original patent was.

WARNING: this could contain previously learned information! (what am i thinking) In econmomics the definition of monopoly is one seller and many buyers. It is illegal in the US to be a part of one. However thanks to class this year, we learned about an oligopoly which is legal and more dangerous. If the gene patents are the product, all the products are similiar in nature, this market structure is poisonous for the marketplace.

If monopolies are ethical then yes it is ethical for one company to hold the knowledge about something as universal as a genome. How they utilize that patent is what really counts. The money that they can make off the patent can help them further studies on the gene and bring a better overall outcome to humanity at home. They only have to follow reasonable judgement in their exclusivity. To allow no one else to utilize such a universal substance is questionable but through the law as of now is legal.

I agree with Katie that competition is the driving force behind medical advancements. Competition indeed drives change and innovation which would result in new inventions that change our lives for the better.

I agree with Nadeem and Katie’s point that “companies are ever going to learn to stop being greedy.” This is how the stock holders and CEOs of companies become rich. They do not want other companies to compete with them even though they know that we can advance at a much greater pace.

I have to agree with what Ashely said. The ruling on this case was justified because companies do not want to be stolen from or copied. That would be unfair, considering the hard work and effort they put into their development of the bacteria. However, this specific case should not be used as precedent, which is how courts decide future cases like it. Yes, the company wanted to make money off of the bacteria – who wouldn’t, with all the possibilities? But they wanted to make sure that no one else would steal their idea and make it their own without paying the price. After all, wouldn’t you get angry if someone stole your design for a computer that you put your time and effort into making? I certainly would.

This was what I meant about not using the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case as precedent. This case, involving Myriad Genetics and Genae Girard, has completely different variables within it. I would treat this case as more of a medical one than one dealing with patents and such. It should be within our rights, or at least our privileges, to seek a second opinion on things. At this point, Myriad Genetics is being greedy and selfish with their tests. They don’t want anyone else to be able to conduct the tests and make money off of them, even if it means denying patients second opinions.

Well yes, I can see why someone would want to patent a gene. What I don’t see is the morality of it. To me, it’s a case of laziness. Why can’t private companies find other ways to fund their studies than to patent something that everyone has? I mean, yes, gene patenting can have its benefits, but my opinion is that they are drastically outweighed by the drawbacks.

I am torn between the issue here. On the one hand, I don’t see the fairness in having a new patent created just because of one, singular difference. On the other hand, I can see the opportunity that could arise from discovering that single difference and the temptation that would cause someone to create a new patent. After all, it is technically a different sequence.

Of course it’s not ethical for just one company to hold the rights and knowledge about a genome. It’s like Wal*Mart being the only company that is allowed to sell samples of saliva and hair. Really, it’s ridiculous. More companies should be able to seek the knowledge that genomes have the ability to provide, not just Myriad. It’s disgusting how one company thinks they can hold the rights to something so common and universal.

I think that we should study this in our curriculum. But back to the point i believe that this Supreme Court occurred so that genetic engineers could gain more publicity. Are disputes about this controversy still going on?

I believe that the patenting of genetic material will not get passed because that is like claiming possession of someone else’s genes. My thoughts are that the benefits of patenting are just for financial growth

Well, it is win-win situation for both parties. I think it is a good idea. Who want someone take credit for their work, when they put in valuable time to achieve this goal? Although both sides may benefit, it exhibits how mankind has deteriorated to the essence of attaining money and becoming more powerful.

That is the problem with the world today. The entanglement with knowledge and power has led people to only exchange it for a hefty price.

In human nature, it is natural to claim values on various items. whether its food, clothes or homes, people have placed labels and values on these items. this is the same situation except its smaller. humans are just sticking to their nature of placing labels on objects and gaining a profit off them to gain wealth. this gene patenting buisness is just like any other item a person wants to sell: first one must find an original item or gene and then claim it and place it on the market. it doesn’t seem like a huge issue to oversee.

All I could think about while reading this was old cranky Mr. Potter from the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.” He owned most of the town and could charge what ever he felt like since he had no competition. I think one company having exclusive rights to a gene that could help with the early detection of cancer is extremely dangerous and bad news for everyone else. With that one company in control of the detection tests, the price of that test will sky-rocket and thus will become unavailable to those who can’t afford the higher prices. Someone needs to stop Myriad Genetics before they turn into the grumpy old Mr. Potter.

I feel like I am reading the same things about monopolies and patents. Obviously, these contridicting view points show that the court case could be a very interesting one. I think the monopolies will drive up the price and make people unable to pay for these tests. I don’t feel that the patent is serving the public the best it can.

This should not be allowed, I believe this should be illegal. Patenting something that everyone already has access to is going to cause a lot of problems. Someone wanting to publish newer and better information will need to go to the company to get the exclusive rights to publish independently. This will only cause problems, others that have also done research will become mad at the company for allowing the other person to publish.

I think that this will only end in disaster, the government will soon realize what they have created a “monopoly”. Monopolies are supposed to be illegal, but in this case the patent allows it. I believe that as soon as the patent expires that they should get broken up, no one company is allowed to control the market like this, even though it happens in other sectors also, this has probably got to be the biggest.

It is unethical for only one company to hold the knowledge of the genome. The company with the monopoly is only hurting the patients by preventing them from getting more opinions. Other companies should be allowed to develop other tests for the genes.

I think it should only be legal to patent a gene in certain situations. I agree with Ashley that this particular advancement deserves a patent. This is a discovery that could benefit society. However, gene patents should not be used in medical situations because they deprive individuals of medical opinions from other doctors.

So basically we are treating genes and/or DNA like a product you can pick up at a store. Technology these days are amazing, but what is the point of choosing certain genes over others? I know that we as humans would like to eliminate diseases, and if certain genes help, I’m all for it. But to sell a gene for its commercial use in order to make a profit seems to be more like a business rather than to help humankind?

Research in the DNA strand of humans has developed immensely since the mid-1900’s. Finding beneficial genes for the human population may help us to live longer lives by being more resistant to diseases. As long as licensing rights are granted to promote more gene research, and as long as it is beneficial to the human population in some way, I believe this could be instituted and put to use in this country and even around the world.

I agree with Lesly. The benefits of patenting a gene are interesting and new but the drawbacks way outweight the benefits. It seems like just being able to fund private research is not a good enough benefit for gene patenting to be a big deal.

Yes, I think the government should change the policy of patents regarding DNA. If more people can have access to certain parts of DNA instead of just one group of people, more problems can be solved and in another perspective.

This is great for the person finding the genome, but I think people now are more focused on getting credit and glory for finding the advancement of science and society. If I was found a part of the genome, of course I would want my name on it, but that should not be primary concern though. Science should be the journey to enlightenment, but not a road filled with accolades.

Another concern, albeit unlikely, is that the tests are faulty. For one thing, how could you tell if the tests are accurate if there is only the one company making them? For all we know the tests could be dead wrong most of the time, and the only way we could know is if the patient had the genes, and died or something. One might say that a great increase in the deaths of people from these genes could be a pretty good indicator of faulty tests, but that is not necessarily the case. The test could either be partially effective, and diagnose some people with the genes, or guess really well. But, I digress. There is no real way to test the effectiveness of the tests without other tests to compare it to.

I’m thinking this idea can be benefical to the human race, but businesses using your own DNA to make a profit is just…immoral you can say. But I’m guessing its not so different than donating sperm to a sperm bank which already happens now.

We definitely need some kind of driving force to enable more medical advancements. I think that patenting a gene sequence is kind of self-righteous. The scientist didn’t create the gene, he found it, and it only will create more problems in the future for other scientists that discover other information about the gene.

When i first read this paragraph, i was outraged that one could buy a certain gene to replace another unfavorable one. After i read the entire article, and learned of its benefits, i’m thinking it’s not as bad. Doing such a thing could improve science and medicine as we know it and thus help mankind, but i still think it’s morally wrong in some ways.

While money from a patent could benefit further studies, I disagree with the principle of the matter- how can someone ‘own’ the rights to what all living things have? I probably don’t know enough about it, but it just seems so mercenary.

The monopoly should be stopped if gene patenting is to be practiced. If only one company has the rights to a certain gene, they might be keeping other companies and researchers from attaining new and valuable information.

Haha, I like Austin’s comment. To get to the point, I find this somewhat disturbing. Everyone is obsessed with laying claim to anything and everything. I agree that someone should be credited with all they have discovered and alone I think that would drive advancements in technology and medicine.

There has to be certain restrictions on the patenting process. No one has patented water or rocks or the even the air we breath, so why is it right for someone to patent a gene that may be present in all human beings. Yes patents for tests to detect the genes is okay, they normally don’t occur to you in nature, but the gene itself. There are no reasons to patent a gene if you control the tests. You can’t tax those with the gene. It would be like slavery, having certain people pay and others not. That is also against the US unalienable rights and the Constitution.

I find what Derek said to be pretty insightful. It would be somewhat close to slavery. An individual cannot pick and chose genes themselves, although one day the parents maybe allowed to, sadly enough. But then again how would the patent owner possibly know every gene of every person? Not plausible in naturally occurring genes.

I believe the line of free enterprise stops when all that is known is discovered therefore one can give valid information to all those that want or require it. It is not ethical for one singular company to hold all this precious information. They should give it to others who can potentially help find out more about the genome or something broad like that. They can protect the property by keeping the situation under control, they cannot go around flaunting and claiming they have some sort of new and improved genome. It would prevent those who are capable of helping but aren’t part of the company, from doing what they can.

hmmm, monopolizing is never a good thing. doesn’t promote innovation; and in this field of study, innovation is what people are expecting

I have to agree with Austin on this one, because genes are one singular product, the information should be available to anyone and everyone. No one company should claim the rights to all of it and privatize the genome. Victoria also makes a good point in the fact that she states the scientist discovered the gene, didnt discover it.

While genetic engineering has come a long way in helping us, this issue is quite touchy. This is kind of like pharmaceutical companies profiting of drugs that can help save peoples lives, yet if they can’t patent it they cant make money and the won’t produce the drug. So it maybe controversial yet necessary.

Aside from monetary benefits I see no reason why anyone would feel it necessary to patent a gene. It seems pointless to me.

In the case of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty, I believe a patent is not needed. I believe that information, advancements, and procedures should flow between scientists around the world. When we make an exception to patent a certain bacteria that can digest crude oil, then we will have to let other scientists patent their things too. By okay-ing one thing is in potentially creating loop holes that scientists are willing to search for. Scientists need to focus on the curing and saving things or lifes, not putting their name on something or winning the Nobel Prize.

Ethical- adj. conforming to accepted standards of moral behavior. In this world there will always be ethical people with morals, ethical people who think they have morals, and unethical people without morals. This is the case in the patenting of a genome. It is unethical and selfish of scientists to believe that patenting a genome that is so universal, will give them rights. When free enterprise stops and free exchange of information starts this matter will be solved and the world’s scientists will be more connected on matters of the world and not trying to find the cure themselves. Everyone in this world needs help and we are just inhibiting ourselves by holding the secrets needed to make advancements in the science world.

It should not be legal to patent a gene or a gene sequence. This violates many moral boundaries and has a lot of ethical issues. Just as metioned in the paragraph, if no other company can even study these genes, then there is a way lower chance of a newer or better test being created. What if someone had the possibility to create a quicker or easier detection, but they couldn’t because of the patent. We would be wasting peoples lives and for what? Money, fame, or what, because I don’t really understand.

Well, this could possibly work in certain instances, but what happens when a company or such decides they don’t want to issue licensing rights because they are too proud of their achievement? Or if someone places their bid too high and someone else who has some really good plans or objectives can’t afford it?

I don’t understand how this patent can be supported by our constitution. We are risking peoples lives just for the selfish gain of others. Medical progress and discoveries should not be kept singularily by one company or person. It is not ethical, moral, or even understandable! This is simply another way to gain money by subjecting people to unnecessary hardship.

This is pure greed.. First of all it is just wrong to “own” a part of a human being. Second, it is completely insane and unethical to think that a person would withhold valuable information that could save someones life. I dont know how the Supreme Court ruled the way it did in Diamond vs Chakrabarty, but it was a mistake. I think it would be okay to hold patents on biotechnology that do not have an effect on the human genome, but otherwise it is just wrong.

Patents make sense when its in terms of machines or devices, but when it comes to life the same rules should no longer apply. What happens when ever gene has an owner? There is an infinite capacity for invention but not the same does not go for life. In a million years if humans still exist we probably will have very similar genes as we have now, but we might also be able to teleport and warp through space. If people want to patents genes then a new law has to be written to account for this.

No I did not.

Does that mean I should be paying someone everytime my body expresses that gene?

I can also kind of see both sides to this. Because allowing someone to file a different patent because of a SNP to me feels like a loophole that is cheating the original founders. But on the otherhand it is technically a different sequence. I find this whole thing very confusing and honestly think that DNA shouldn’t even be patented. I mean how do you own genetic information?

Sarah is completely correct. Knowledge is for anyone and everyone and it should never be withheld when it is for the better good of humanity. When the physical health of a fellow human being is an issue money should be at the bottom of the priority list. Extortion is a crime and hindering the furtherance of knowledge for the greater good of the people should be as well.

instead of suing the company wouldn’t it have been a better idea to find a company who was willing to try to make another test and then personally appeal to Myriad. And i’m confused does Myraid own the genes BRCA1 and 2 or just the test detecting them?

Imagine how much bigger our biology books would be. Each one of the gene sequences mentioned would have to have its own little copyright explantion and all that other jazz that goes with it. Some of the genes we learned about might not even be in there because the owners could refuse to share their information with the public.
That just seems so ridiculous to me. Genes should definitely not be patented.

So i say if people are willing to make DNA and profit from it… heck people have already started making bio-engineered animals, why not take it a step further and maybe help a few people.. I say, whats the worst that could happen.

I think that the only way that a company should be able to patent a gene is if they came up with the sequence uniquely, and did not splice it from genes from other species. Of course, that kind of skill is still way out there in the future, but I believe with the help of computers, man may someday be able to predict protein shapes and create entirely unique genes. These have the right to be patented.

I agree with the supreme court case decision on patenting genes. That scientist discovered the gene and I think they have the right to do what they want with the gene they created. I think it is in their best interest to share the genes with other scientists so that knowledge can be spread about the gene and possible scientific advancements.

This is definitely not a great idea….
The healthcare could greatly suffer due to the secrecy of a genome and the ability of scientists and such to experiment with a gene.
This could lead to lack of new ideas and the complete waste of an otherwise, possibly great idea to work with a genome.
We are limiting ourselves by applying “ownership” of these genes.

It is definitely not ethical for only one company to hold the knowledge or information about the genome. Sometimes companies just can’t be trusted; I mean look at Enron. This one company could partake in manipulation and deception, placing patients in danger.