Download Free Patented Human Genes With Or Against Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Patented Human Genes With Or Against and write the review.

Seminar paper from the year 2008 in the subject Ethics, grade: B, The George Washington University, 7 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: This paper proposes to ban patents on human genes. The patent system protects the investment of researchers by allowing them to own genes they discover. This, however, results in a lot of ethical problems such as impeding innovations and potential research, disadvantaging low-income consumers, and owning a naturally-existing part rather than a creation. In spite of various objections to those issues, the arguments will be defended with logic and evidence. The paper concludes the arguments with final thoughts about gene patenting and its drawbacks.
Who Owns You? is a comprehensive exploration of the numerous philosophical and legal problems of gene patenting. Provides the first comprehensive book-length treatment of this subject Develops arguments regarding moral realism, and provides a method of judgment that attempts to be ideologically neutral Calls for public attention and policy changes to end the practice of gene patenting
Biotechnology is one of the most promising fields of technology, especially since molecular biology methods have enhanced our knowledge of genes, their structure, and their action. This knowledge makes it possible to change genetic material and construct new varieties of cultural plants and animals for various purposes such as nutrition, scientific and medical experimentation, and treatment of human diseases. Such inventions may even include human genes. The understandable desire to have legal protection in this domain has created new problems - especially from the viewpoint of the law and acquiring patents for these new inventions. These problems are under wide discussion and are often controversial. This volume provides a unique overview of the current problems and opinions in this controversial field.
Report of an inquiry concerned with two broad issues: the patenting of genetic materials and technologies, and the exploitation of these patents and the distinction that can and possibly should be made between discoveries and inventions when referring to claims over genetic sequences.
In 2005, an article in the highly influential journal Science reported that roughly 20% of human genes are patented. This figure has been widely cited and at times over-interpreted. For example, a popular science fiction author warns the public that their bodies are "owned" by someone else. A bill was introduced in Congress in 2007 that would essentially seek to ban the patenting of DNA. The bill appears motivated in part by a perception that one-fifth of our genes are owned by somebody else, that these owners can do whatever they want with these genes, and that there is "nothing that we can do to stop them" (presumably short of banning the patenting of DNA). While clearly many US patents have issued that reference human genetic sequences, the actual scope of exclusivity varies dramatically from claim-to-claim as dictated by the actual claim language. Many patents restrict only some very narrow use of the genetic sequence, others are much broader - none cover actual human genes as they exist in their native state. And it should go without saying that none confer actual ownership of human beings, or allow a patent owner to do "whatever it wants" with another person's genes. In light of the hyperbole and high interest currently surrounding human gene patents, and in an attempt to assess the true impact of these patents, I conducted a search to identify and analyze all instances where a patent relating to a human gene was asserted in a lawsuit. The results suggest that the impact of human gene patents has been felt primarily in the context of biotechnology-derived protein therapeutics, i.e., biologics, the most important fruit of the biotechnology revolution. The impact on genetic testing and assess to research tools has been relatively modest, with some notable exceptions. Furthermore, lawsuits are being filed at a decreasing frequency over time, and it appears that only three human gene patent litigations are currently pending. Two involve patents relating to the production of recombinant erythropoietin, an important biologic drug; these patents claim priority to applications filed in the early 1980s. The third is best characterized as a contract dispute, wherein the licensor of a research tool patent alleges that a licensee has exceeded the scope of its license; this case has been stayed pending the outcome of a court-ordered arbitration of the underlying contractual dispute. The article concludes with a discussion of some policy implications to be drawn from the results of this survey.
This paper questions whether the application of the patent system to DNA sequences achieves its goals of stimulating innovation for the public good and rewarding people for useful new inventions. Even if DNA sequences are considered eligible for patenting, they must also be novel, inventive, and useful. The application of these criteria has not been stringently applied. In future, patents asserting rights over DNA sequences should become the exception rather than the norm.
The 2nd Edition of Who Owns You, David Koepsell’s widely acclaimed exploration of the philosophical and legal problems of patenting human genes, is updated to reflect the most recent changes to the cultural and legal climate relating to the practice of gene patenting. Lays bare the theoretical assumptions that underpin the injustice of patents on unmodified genes Makes a unique argument for a commons-by-necessity, explaining how parts of the universe are simply not susceptible to monopoly claims Represents the only work that attempts to first define the nature of the genetic objects involved before any ethical conclusions are reached Provides the most comprehensive accounting of the various lawsuits, legislative changes, and the public debate surrounding AMP v. Myriad, the most significant case regarding gene patents
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The case asked one question: are human genes patentable? Gene patents became commonplace during the biotechnology revolution of the 1980s, but generated a complex web of moral, legal, and biological questions. While some viewed gene patents as necessary in promoting and sustaining innovation, others felt that owning the code of life was morally and legally misguided. This tension played a central role in the early years of the Human Genome Project, and continued as people experienced the challenging consequences of assigning property rights to our shared biology. Several patients with genetic diseases were forced to navigate limited or expensive testing because of a company's genetic monopoly. Some scientists worried that their research might infringe a patent. When the Supreme Court decided the Myriad trial, ruling that unaltered human genes were not patent-eligible, their decision marked a surprising and historic shift in the relationship between patent law and fundamental biology-but questions and uncertainty about a future without gene patents remain.
This book assesses the scientific value and merit of research on human genetic differencesâ€"including a collection of DNA samples that represents the whole of human genetic diversityâ€"and the ethical, organizational, and policy issues surrounding such research. Evaluating Human Genetic Diversity discusses the potential uses of such collection, such as providing insight into human evolution and origins and serving as a springboard for important medical research. It also addresses issues of confidentiality and individual privacy for participants in genetic diversity research studies.