One-fifth of any given person's genes are privately owned, is this invasion overly intrusive of one's personal space or should one not be concerned about this at all? Should gene patent holders be allowed to withhold genes at their will or should one be in charge of what happens to their own genes within their body? Michael Crichton, American best-selling author, who wrote “Patenting Life” and American economist and author John E. Calfee who wrote, “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” both discuss the affects on people when gene patent holders come into the process of medical research. Crichton and Calfee both agree that gene patent holders have ultimate control of what is done with the genes they own, although Crichton emphasizes the cons whereas
…show more content…
6) referring to gene patents in the United States. Calfee asserts his claims by stating his findings in the National Academy of Sciences publications stating that they had “...found little evidence that gene patents had adversely affected research.” (para. 2). In the article, Calfee states what the two main complaints about gene patents are, one being “...when a gene patent gives a seller a monopoly over a product, that product will be sold at monopoly prices, which can be much higher than competitive prices...that a single seller can restrict how a diagnostic is used in addition to how it is priced.” (para. 3). This causes concern for patients and researchers, although Calfee argues that in fact the gene patent can benefit both parties regardless of the gene patent holders pricing, stating “...like most economists I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation.” (para. 3). Another complaint Calfee mentions, was noted by an academic plaintiff who stated in the Times story Calfee pulls his argument from, concerning the hinderance of research stating “...potentially disastrous scenario is a “patent thicket” in which research is hemmed in by the possibility of bumping into all sorts of patents, such as those the researchers never knew existed.” (para. 4) which caused concern for “...legendary costs and delay”. Although Calfee quickly states how the National Academy of Science pursued two surveys, led by well qualified expert John Walsh, in which they found “...little evidence emerged that research laboratories were hemmed in by gene patents.” (para. 5) leading to the rarity of litigation as fore mentioned by the academic plaintiff. Calfee admits to understanding that problems do exist with this U.S Patent and Trademark Office, however more or less on a whole
6) referring to gene patents in the United States. Calfee asserts his claims by stating his findings in the National Academy of Sciences publications stating that they had “...found little evidence that gene patents had adversely affected research.” (para. 2). In the article, Calfee states what the two main complaints about gene patents are, one being “...when a gene patent gives a seller a monopoly over a product, that product will be sold at monopoly prices, which can be much higher than competitive prices...that a single seller can restrict how a diagnostic is used in addition to how it is priced.” (para. 3). This causes concern for patients and researchers, although Calfee argues that in fact the gene patent can benefit both parties regardless of the gene patent holders pricing, stating “...like most economists I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation.” (para. 3). Another complaint Calfee mentions, was noted by an academic plaintiff who stated in the Times story Calfee pulls his argument from, concerning the hinderance of research stating “...potentially disastrous scenario is a “patent thicket” in which research is hemmed in by the possibility of bumping into all sorts of patents, such as those the researchers never knew existed.” (para. 4) which caused concern for “...legendary costs and delay”. Although Calfee quickly states how the National Academy of Science pursued two surveys, led by well qualified expert John Walsh, in which they found “...little evidence emerged that research laboratories were hemmed in by gene patents.” (para. 5) leading to the rarity of litigation as fore mentioned by the academic plaintiff. Calfee admits to understanding that problems do exist with this U.S Patent and Trademark Office, however more or less on a whole