Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Should patenting genes be understood as unethical?

    Not what you're looking for? Search our solutions OR ask your own Custom question.

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    I need to argue "for" or "against" one side of the question title. I lean towards the "against/no" side but see pros/cons for both sides. I would like to receive sufficient input to be able to write a 4-8 page essay on this topic with references provided, if/as used. It is not a topic that I know much about.

    The full discussion provided me for the question is Issue 19 in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society (12e) by Lisa Newton, Elaine Englehardt, and Michael Pritchard (2012).

    Is the patenting of genes in the best interest of health and patients?

    From an ethical viewpoint, discussion on this topic encompasses views from both sides. For example:

    No, it's a moot point: Thousands of patents on genes have already been issued by the U.S. Patent Office so legality of gene patenting has been established. Moral concerns have been answered on patents, mainly because the genes have been isolated and altered significantly and are part of a scientific bank of genes for overall research. (Annabelle Lever, "Ethics and the Patenting of Human Genes" The Journal of Philosophy, Science, and Law (vol 1), November 2001)

    Yes, it's not too late: The human genome is a different business enterprise than other patent applications. The genome stands for essential building blocks of the human species and as such questions of ethics and human dignity should be studied. (Miriam Schurlman, "Of SNPS, TRIPS, and Human Dignity: Ethics and Gene Patenting" BioProcess International, January 2003)

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com December 24, 2021, 11:11 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    In my opinion, I side to argue against the patenting of genes and believe it should be unethical in any case and the Supreme court believes the same based upon their latest ruling.

    "The Supreme Court ruled this week that naturally occurring genes can't be patented, which should be a boon for the host of emerging gene testing and patenting companies that are coming out of the Valley.

    The court ruled that human genes can't be patented, but that synthetic genes can be protected.

    Now that naturally occurring human genes can't be patented, expect gene testing companies to benefit broadly with lower-cost products across the board. The costs for full human genome sequencing have already fallen to about $8,000 today from $100 million in 2011" (Cutler, 2013).

    As unorthodox as it is to want to clone a human, being violated of our rights to patent people is the highest level of lifestyle/personal invasion. For example what if a person has a child that everyone admired. Would it be ethically right for the child to be ...

    Solution Summary

    This article provides information regarding patenting genes. It contains personal opinions as well around the subject.