Synthesis Essay Genes are the blueprint of nature. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the biological language used to create genes, and those genes make up our characteristics like blond hair and brown eyes. Genes are special codes that is found in all forms of life, including cancer cells and other diseases. A recently new practice of patenting genes has become a controversial topic raising ethical, economical, and other issues. Authors and critics Michael Crichton of the New York Times, and John E. Calfee of American magazine delineate their opposing views of gene patenting in two separate essays. Crichton believes in the abolishment of gene patents, using ethics as the backbone of his argument in his op-ed piece “Patenting Life.” On the other
…show more content…
Crichton observes how other countries without gene patents study genes and infers they “...offer better gene testing than we do, because when multiple labs are allowed to do testing, more mutations are discovered, leading to higher-quality tests” (442). This notion makes sense; no restrictions on the gene make it more available to anyone who wants to analyze it. Calfee indicates one of the complaints of gene patents is that patenting “gives a seller a monopoly over a product” and monopolies charge exceedingly high prices. However, he contends this statement by referring back to the NAS report: “It turns out that researchers seldom worry about what is patented and what is not” insinuating that clinicians perform tests on genes regardless of patent restrictions (Calfee …show more content…
However, the addition of patents on genes is unfamiliar territory, frightening some and fueling others. Crichton’s perspective of putting an end to owning nature, with overtones of the ethical position on gene patents, questions where the line is between health and economics. Calfee’s vision of economical strength coming from realm of biological discovery pushes for the ownership of genes, saying the result will improve research, therefore the patient 's wellbeing; underlying the message of money fueling a medical facility’s ability to study more about a
Crichton observes how other countries without gene patents study genes and infers they “...offer better gene testing than we do, because when multiple labs are allowed to do testing, more mutations are discovered, leading to higher-quality tests” (442). This notion makes sense; no restrictions on the gene make it more available to anyone who wants to analyze it. Calfee indicates one of the complaints of gene patents is that patenting “gives a seller a monopoly over a product” and monopolies charge exceedingly high prices. However, he contends this statement by referring back to the NAS report: “It turns out that researchers seldom worry about what is patented and what is not” insinuating that clinicians perform tests on genes regardless of patent restrictions (Calfee …show more content…
However, the addition of patents on genes is unfamiliar territory, frightening some and fueling others. Crichton’s perspective of putting an end to owning nature, with overtones of the ethical position on gene patents, questions where the line is between health and economics. Calfee’s vision of economical strength coming from realm of biological discovery pushes for the ownership of genes, saying the result will improve research, therefore the patient 's wellbeing; underlying the message of money fueling a medical facility’s ability to study more about a