Crichton V. Calfee: The Gene Patent Argument Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee both discuss the topic of gene patents in their respective articles, “Patenting Life” and “Decoding The Use Of Gene Patents.” However, the similarities end there as their opinions are the direct opposite of one another, with Crichton expressing extreme displeasure at the idea of gene patenting while Calfee is in support of the practice. Firstly, Crichton believes the patenting of genes as a whole to be a mistake. He believes the practice to be a result of the United States Patent Office (PTO) “[misinterpreting] previous Supreme Court rulings” (Crichton 441). Crichton argues that because “humans share mostly the same genes” (441) and “the same genes are found
…show more content…
In fact, Calfee does not seem to be troubled by the idea of a monopoly be implemented in gene research. He states, “I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation” (444). Crichton also loathes gene patents for their effect of impeding future research. He states that once a disease is patented, researchers must pay the owner for the right to conduct tests and that this has led to “many other researchers to study something less expensive” (Crichton 442). He supports his concerns even more thoroughly claiming “when SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it - because of patent concerns” (442). No action was being taken to combat this worldwide epidemic because scientists were more fearful of being …show more content…
While many are against the practice for moral reasons and its effects on research, there are some who believe that these issues are not as large as suggested at first glance. Crichton argues that gene patenting is wrong and immoral. But should morals dictate our ability to conduct research and shouldn’t those who have put in the work be compensated in some way for their effort to advance our understanding of the world around us? However, one cannot help notice that the argument for gene patenting fails to actually make a convincing argument stating mostly that the problems behind gene patenting are simply not as bad as one might think. But does this not mean that there are problems however small, nonetheless; and that things would be better if the patents had never been issued in the first
In fact, Calfee does not seem to be troubled by the idea of a monopoly be implemented in gene research. He states, “I support the granting of patents and their consequent pricing power as a tool to foster innovation” (444). Crichton also loathes gene patents for their effect of impeding future research. He states that once a disease is patented, researchers must pay the owner for the right to conduct tests and that this has led to “many other researchers to study something less expensive” (Crichton 442). He supports his concerns even more thoroughly claiming “when SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it - because of patent concerns” (442). No action was being taken to combat this worldwide epidemic because scientists were more fearful of being …show more content…
While many are against the practice for moral reasons and its effects on research, there are some who believe that these issues are not as large as suggested at first glance. Crichton argues that gene patenting is wrong and immoral. But should morals dictate our ability to conduct research and shouldn’t those who have put in the work be compensated in some way for their effort to advance our understanding of the world around us? However, one cannot help notice that the argument for gene patenting fails to actually make a convincing argument stating mostly that the problems behind gene patenting are simply not as bad as one might think. But does this not mean that there are problems however small, nonetheless; and that things would be better if the patents had never been issued in the first