Today I read the 2 articles required, The first article is “ Patenting Life” by Michael Crichton. The second article is “ Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” by John E. Calfee. The subject of both articles is Gene Patenting. They both discuss the pros and cons of gene patenting. Gene patenting has been a controversial subject since its beginnings. The two contrasting positions have been that the patent is harmful and the other is the patent is for the overall benefit on mankind.
The first article by Michael Crichton states that these patents are the cause of the raising prices of medical care . He believes people die at the cause of gene patent. “You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted …show more content…
He does state some similar obstacles like the first article. One is that the patents are usually owned by a monopoly and therefore can charge a monopoly price. The second point is the the gene patents get in the way of research so that people won’t get healed or treatment because of them blocking test and treatment. That similarity ends in the middle of the article. He cites lawsuits and several news articles that show the benefits of gene patenting. The citations include “ little evidence emerged that research laboratories were hemmed in by gene patents”, “prices of patented and exclusively licensed tests are not dramatically or consistently higher than those of tests without a monopoly”and “ dire predictions that patents will cripple genetics research should be viewed with skepticism on both sides of the atlantic”.The underlying outcome is that there is no harmful issue with gene patenting.
The summary of both articles used that they used facts and statistics to prove which is a better way of handling the business of genes patenting. They both had good arguments and be equally right to their own audience. Personally, I think that gene patenting is immoral. My opinion is not based on religious beliefs. It is based that our lives and bodies are our own. It makes me think of slavery. At what point can someone else a part of you, then perhaps ALL of
The first article by Michael Crichton states that these patents are the cause of the raising prices of medical care . He believes people die at the cause of gene patent. “You, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted …show more content…
He does state some similar obstacles like the first article. One is that the patents are usually owned by a monopoly and therefore can charge a monopoly price. The second point is the the gene patents get in the way of research so that people won’t get healed or treatment because of them blocking test and treatment. That similarity ends in the middle of the article. He cites lawsuits and several news articles that show the benefits of gene patenting. The citations include “ little evidence emerged that research laboratories were hemmed in by gene patents”, “prices of patented and exclusively licensed tests are not dramatically or consistently higher than those of tests without a monopoly”and “ dire predictions that patents will cripple genetics research should be viewed with skepticism on both sides of the atlantic”.The underlying outcome is that there is no harmful issue with gene patenting.
The summary of both articles used that they used facts and statistics to prove which is a better way of handling the business of genes patenting. They both had good arguments and be equally right to their own audience. Personally, I think that gene patenting is immoral. My opinion is not based on religious beliefs. It is based that our lives and bodies are our own. It makes me think of slavery. At what point can someone else a part of you, then perhaps ALL of