Nearly one-fifth of the human genome is privately owned (Crichton 441). Gene patenting is a relatively new concept and controversial one at that. Many scholars have very strong opinions on this topic, two of these scholars being: Harvard graduate and novelist Michael Crichton and a former resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and staff economist John E. Calfee. Both scholars have written extremely compelling essays on the topic. Crichton’s essay “Patenting Life”, gives an overview of his adverse opinion towards gene patenting and provides evidence to support his opinion. Former AEI scholar Calfee also provides his opinion on the topic, but offers a different perspective. Both Crichton and Calfee share their opposing views
…show more content…
Crichton believes that the ability to patent genes was a misstep in, what he describes as, “An underfinanced and understaffed government agency.” ( 441) The former Harvard medical student believes that this new up and coming practice was a result of a “misinterpreted” supreme court ruling. (441) He leads the reader to believe that getting genes patented is a relatively easy process. On the contrary, Calfee states that is actually quite arduous to obtain a patent. The staff economist elaborates on topic by stating that in order to obtain a patent on a gene, one must filter the gene segment in a way that is unnatural or “does not occur in nature.” and find a use for it. (444) He also states that the PTO has boundaries when it comes to gene patents and has “resisted” numerous groups trying to work the system. (445) Crichton disagrees with gene patenting and indicates that without the PTO gene patenting would not exist, in spite of this Calfee has an altered perspective on the topic and believes that the PTO is just doing their
Crichton believes that the ability to patent genes was a misstep in, what he describes as, “An underfinanced and understaffed government agency.” ( 441) The former Harvard medical student believes that this new up and coming practice was a result of a “misinterpreted” supreme court ruling. (441) He leads the reader to believe that getting genes patented is a relatively easy process. On the contrary, Calfee states that is actually quite arduous to obtain a patent. The staff economist elaborates on topic by stating that in order to obtain a patent on a gene, one must filter the gene segment in a way that is unnatural or “does not occur in nature.” and find a use for it. (444) He also states that the PTO has boundaries when it comes to gene patents and has “resisted” numerous groups trying to work the system. (445) Crichton disagrees with gene patenting and indicates that without the PTO gene patenting would not exist, in spite of this Calfee has an altered perspective on the topic and believes that the PTO is just doing their