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