When patents on genes were first granted it stirred up quite a controversy, since then there have been quite a bit of papers that support and oppose gene patenting. In their respective articles, Michael Crichton and John E. Calfee both discuss the controversial topic of gene patents; however Crichton is against gene patents and Calfee is for gene patents as an economist and brings up the pros of gene patents in his article. In their articles both of them talk about obtaining a patent from the United States Patent Office, how gene patents affect researching in areas that are patented, and how gene patents can affect medical cost.
In “Patenting Life” Crichton says the “bizarre situation” of gene patents began when the “understaffed and underfinanced” U.S. Patent Office made a mistake and misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings (4). He also says that the results …show more content…
He also talks about how families of children with the Canavan disease have to pay for a test to detect the disease, although a New York hospital promised it’d be free, because the researcher’s employer (Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute) patented the gene (8). Another point he brings up in paragraph ten that “the owner of the genome of Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study the disease.” In Calfee's article he also brings up the $3,000 breast cancer test (1), and also acknowledges the complaint of gene patents causing monopolies in paragraph three. He argues against these points in paragraph five by bringing up an article that was published in Nature magazine that says the prices of tests that are patented are not as high as tests without
In “Patenting Life” Crichton says the “bizarre situation” of gene patents began when the “understaffed and underfinanced” U.S. Patent Office made a mistake and misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings (4). He also says that the results …show more content…
He also talks about how families of children with the Canavan disease have to pay for a test to detect the disease, although a New York hospital promised it’d be free, because the researcher’s employer (Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute) patented the gene (8). Another point he brings up in paragraph ten that “the owner of the genome of Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study the disease.” In Calfee's article he also brings up the $3,000 breast cancer test (1), and also acknowledges the complaint of gene patents causing monopolies in paragraph three. He argues against these points in paragraph five by bringing up an article that was published in Nature magazine that says the prices of tests that are patented are not as high as tests without