Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Patents on genes, ethics, etc...
Topic Started: May 15 2009, 01:24 PM (51 Views)
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Just wondering where people stand on the issue of companies like Myriad Genetics and Genetic Technologies putting patents on various genes.

I for one find it extremely unethical when investment in the patent in the name of R&D gets in the way of treating patients with forms of cancer, and babies at high risk for epilepsy (two of the more landmark examples I've been able to find). I think that companies that are willing to look into research of this caliber should by all means be given special privilege, but holding a patent on a gene that, by law, makes it their gene and therefore inaccessible to care providers.

Although, I've also read that these companies wanted the monopoly for investment purposes, but naturally they have no issue with the gene being used to help the sick. It's just the fact that they've "patented knowledge" that creates a problem. It's helping to identify more illnesses, but is blocking treatment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
I believe they are patenting "intellectual property". This is a very, very dicey legal area since patenting a gene is like patenting a tree. I would think they would have to prove they have "modified" a gene in some way to patent it, otherwise if it is a natually occuring gene, I don't see how they can get away with it. I may have to discuss this with my cousin's husband who is an "Intelletual Property" lawyer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
You shouldn't be able to copyright something that you didn't create. If they have modified genes, then I suppose they have the legal right to copyright, but in the interest of proper ethical behavior, they should voluntarily forgo this right. Not that that would ever happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
There shouldn't be a legal right to hold copyrights, trademarks, or patents on anything, including writings, music, brands, and inventions, and especially genes.

Ulgania
 
I for one find it extremely unethical when investment in the patent in the name of R&D gets in the way of treating patients with forms of cancer, and babies at high risk for epilepsy (two of the more landmark examples I've been able to find). I think that companies that are willing to look into research of this caliber should by all means be given special privilege, but holding a patent on a gene that, by law, makes it their gene and therefore inaccessible to care providers.


Why should a company that is willing to look into "research of this caliber" be given a special privilege? That would just prevent other companies with the same interest or willingness to pursue this research from pursuing this research.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, May 15 2009, 03:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Tristan da Cunha
May 15 2009, 03:31 PM
There shouldn't be a legal right to hold copyrights, trademarks, or patents on anything, including writings, music, brands, and inventions, and especially genes.

Ulgania
 
I for one find it extremely unethical when investment in the patent in the name of R&D gets in the way of treating patients with forms of cancer, and babies at high risk for epilepsy (two of the more landmark examples I've been able to find). I think that companies that are willing to look into research of this caliber should by all means be given special privilege, but holding a patent on a gene that, by law, makes it their gene and therefore inaccessible to care providers.


Why should a company that is willing to look into "research of this caliber" be given a special privilege? That would just prevent other companies with the same interest or willingness to pursue this research from pursuing this research.
If anything, the intention of that statement was that if they can show they have the means to do the research, and are willing to do it in an ethical manner that would not compromise the health of anyone in the process, and without the intention to make a decisive profit that compromises anyone's health.

But, I'm not that well read on patent laws. I just know that a patent implies a level of monopoly that, in this case, can compromise people's health.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply