Gene Patenting Is An Excessively Immoral And Greedy Endeavour.

» Home » Society

Not only is it inferring the covetous ownership of those who share a common gene it is also insatiably greedy.

verum

08 Oct 2009 15:16

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Sooner or later, they're going to own us all just by gene patenting.

joylove101

09 Oct 2009 05:15

Add a Comment

Those who are "patenting" genes are not building or forming them which is the criteria in invention for filing a patent.

Rather, they're writing down the list of genetic material innate in other people or in plants and animals and calling it their own. Imagine you touch something and someone enlarges your fingerprint and uses it as part of a sign, or your picture in an ad without your permission. It's invasion of your privacy.

And in case you think someone shouldn't have to pay up in such cases, look up what happened to Nestle over Tasters Choice, having to pay out US$15 million.

Http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-134518122/modelactor-whose-face-taster.html

Claiming the work of nature as your own is as dishonest as claiming the work of other people. Isaac Newton didn't claim he caused gravity, he just explained how it worked.

Edit:

Aspirin and quinine occur naturally in plants and penicillin in mold, but they have to be extracted. The process of extraction can be patented, but not the plant.

08 Oct 2009 19:14

1 Comment

I'll confess I find your argument more compelling than verum's, no offense intended to verum who has made many great posts. But your point that if they didn't create a process they may not be able to patent it is pretty solid. The exceptions though are products found in nature and usable as drugs (hypothetically penicilins, aspirin, things of that kind are still patentable although the scientist didn't actually create the first bread mold for penicilin).

Grenache

08 Oct 2009 22:10

Comment

It would only be "immoral" if the patent rights somehow stopped genes from doing whatever they do unless a fee or permission were arranged. As long as you and your genes can still be you then the patent on those genes is immaterial to your being. Furthermore patents protect the useful knowledge on those genes for only a limited number of years, it's not open ended forever, and the purpose of that limited time frame is to allow the discoverer to recover some of their expenses of research by having a time window to market products making use of that knowledge. Eventually any and every patented gene will be public domain for everyone.

One last thought, how is something "excessively immoral"? Is there such a thing as "appropriately immoral"?, nah it's just "immoral".

Grenache

08 Oct 2009 18:14

16 Comments

No it is excessively immoral. It is disgusting what these lowlifes will do to gain an extra buck.
Anyone with a shred of compassion for their fellow man would be in utter revulsion.

The gene which is commonly linked with breast cancer was patented. No one could do research (except for the company) on that Gene, and if people wanted to get a test done to see if they had breast cancer, they would have to pay that certain company extra money. It's a gene for crying out loud!
This means that other doctors cannot do research on the gene, preventing or postponing any cure for that type of cancer. This also builds on the expense of those tests, thwarting those who have financial struggles from testing and attacking the problem at an early stage.

It's a fVcken disgusting joke. It's human greed at its absolute worst.
The good thing is that Canadian doctors completely ignore the patent; which as a result saves lives and money. But those South of the border abide by that patent which has severely shorted the lives of many.

There is immoral, then there is excessively immoral; it just means even more so immoral. GO FIGURE.

verum

08 Oct 2009 18:32

Comment

No it is excessively immoral. It is disgusting what these lowlifes will do to gain an extra buck.
Anyone with a shred of compassion for their fellow man would be in utter revulsion.

The gene which is commonly linked with breast cancer was patented. No one could do research (except for the company) on that Gene, and if people wanted to get a test done to see if they had breast cancer, they would have to pay that certain company extra money. It's a gene for crying out loud!
This means that other doctors cannot do research on the gene, preventing or postponing any cure for that type of cancer. This also builds on the expense of those tests, thwarting those who have financial struggles from testing and attacking the problem at an early stage.

It's a fVcken disgusting joke. It's human greed at its absolute worst.
The good  thing is that Canadian doctors completely ignore the patent; which as a result saves lives and money. But those South of the border abide by that patent which has severely shorted the lives of many.

There is immoral, then there is excessively immoral; it just means even more so immoral. GO FIGURE.

Comment

No it is excessively immoral. It is disgusting what these lowlifes will do to gain an extra buck.
Anyone with a shred of compassion for their fellow man would be in utter revulsion.

There is immoral, then there is excessively immoral; it just means even more so immoral. GO FIGURE.

Comment

You're still not technically accurate verum.  The gene patent does not forbid anyone from researching a gene just the same as a drug patent does not forbid anyone from researching what that drug is or how it works.  Companies and universities legally research competitors products all the time.  What patents do is stop you from SELLING a product that infringes on the patent.  You can research all you want, you just can't turn that research into sales unless you strike a deal with the patent holder.  That inability to sell can suppress some competing research, but it also inspires tweaking so a slightly different product or gene may achieve the same marketability without infringing the original patent.  In fact any university research lab or medical center that wants to research a product can fully do so provided they can get their hands on the product to study it.  And many generics companies devote 100% of their research to making the closest knockoff they can to a big hit patented product (with just minor compound variation or with a different snip section of a gene) so they can sell it without crossing the line of the patent.  The research doesn't stop just because of a patent.

Your degree of revulsion does not make you automatically a patent attorney.

How's that iron LordDaniel?

Comment

You sidestep half of my arguments, so first I'm going to answer yours point by point and then I'm going to remind you what you missed.
V1: Does it forbid research unless you work within the confines of the patent?  NO, it forbids SALES not research.  They can still study the gene to understand it, they can publish what they find out and advance their academic and professional standing, and genes are seldom one section does one thing, the body's DNA has countless redundancies and junk sections and complementary genes and the process of studying one can turn up many other avenues for sales outside the scope of the patent.
V2: Is it like owning a human being?  NO, your biology can still do whatever it naturally does. 
V3: The patent is on the sequence?  Partly true, they have to know the sequence code and also prove its functionality.  Neither is an easy patent defense.  Subtle differences and/or mutations from person to person can result in a slightly different sequence studied by the competitor and thus may win uniqueness in a patent lawsuit.  And redundancies and overlap of genes in the body mean the functional proof of the gene for the patent may be contested too.

You missed these:
J1: Patents have limited number of years (20) and after that it's 100% public domain anyway.
J2: It's fair for time to market products.  Yes it is.  In fact many breakthroughs are by university faculty who then can use their patent to go start their own biotech company eventually leading to major employers, a big boost to the economy, and a link between that university and business.  Take the patent away and you have just one more struggling postdoc.
J3: Not only does morality have nothing to do with this debate but there's no such thing as excessively immoral anyway.  No one is physically harmed or suffering due to patents on genes.

Comment

"Does it forbid research unless you work within the confines of the patent? "

Unless my sources are completely incorrect, the patent does forbid other companies from researching that gene. I double checked my sources and again and again I have concluded that those who do not work for the company that patented the gene cannot legally operate research in anyway using the gene sequence. Have you double checked your sources?

So other scientists dedicated to research cannot further their understanding of that gene thus diminishing the chances from coming leaps closer to saving lives.

That is the entire premise of my debate.

"Is it like owning a human being? NO, your biology can still do whatever it naturally does."

I agree that in the most technical fashion, patenting a gene in this manner does not directly give ownership to those who patented it. However, I do think that patenting a gene, not in the name of science but rather in the name of business, and putting such restrictions on others from researching the gene sequence, relinquishes figuratively those who possess that gene to a mindless commercialized product. I find it revolting.

For your third point, I simply cannot link it to the interests of my debate. The "instance" (perhaps I should have specified) I am concerned with, does not involve the mutations of genes or any thing in that manner. The gene is common in those who have breast cancer. It is that exact gene that was patented, so any other forms of it are completely irrelevant. It is the exact sequence; if there are any variations or alterations within that gene all implications regarded are lost.

“Patents have limited number of years (20) and after that it's 100% public domain anyway”

I still think that despite the limit, it is still immoral to deprive, those in standing, of research, which could consequently save lives.

“It's fair for time to market products. Yes it is. In fact many breakthroughs are by university faculty who then can use their patent to go start their own biotech company eventually leading to major employers, a big boost to the economy, and a link between that university and business. Take the patent away and you have just one more struggling postdoc.”

In circumstance I am concerned with, the company does not need the benefits of the patent. It is a multi billion dollar corporation.

“Not only does morality have nothing to do with this debate but there's no such thing as excessively immoral anyway. No one is physically harmed or suffering due to patents on genes.”

People are harmed, the research prevented could have resulted in a cure by now, and those who cannot afford the test which use the patented gene acquire severely shortened lives.

Now, you claim that the patent does not deny others from researching that particular gene. I have been told other wise, I had a discussion with one of my profs, but if she is wrong my argument is pretty much massacred. Although I don’t think she is.

Comment

First, I'm no longer disappointed in you, you stepped up, good job.

Do gene patents forbid research?  You say you have your sources but you list none other than a professor I cannot consult.  Well here's the link for the Human Genome Project and you'll note as you read that it covers both sides of this issue, it's not a one-sided source, in fact it lists more bullets on the negatives of patents than the positives.  http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml#5  However also note it confirms my claim that it's not the act of research itself which is forbidden it's instead profitting from selling products resulting from that research.

Ask your professor this 1) What's the penalty to a university professor who publishes data on a patented gene?  Is there one?  They're not selling a product, they're not competing with the patent owner.  They do still get the notariety of whatever their research finds out.  And the world's universities have lots of academics looking at breast cancer genes or other genes and publishing what they find out.  I used to work at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, one of the teaching hospitals of Harvard Medical School, I helped prepare publication submissions and grant applications, and I never once heard any faculty member complain "gee I'd liked to do an experiment but so and so's patent won't let me research it".  I never heard that because patents are a business restriction, they're not academic restrictions.  In fact the weblink I give specifically explains that patents put that gene sequence in public access instead of companies privately having the sequence and guarding it as a secret.  Patents add to the portfolio of what unversities can research.

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

19 minutes ago

I think you're right read more...

36 minutes ago

They need to find healthy alternatives. They are a big part of people being fat. All fast food chains need to cut the trans... read more...

2 hours ago

Yes of course he was a role model. The question you should of asked was, was he a good role model? Now that you could debate... read more...

2 hours ago

All my friends and I are very very crazy! Not by the way we dress, we are very funky fashionable (it can be called zany,... read more...

4 hours ago

I would agree with you, finsch, if I didn't already know you had a "naturalistic" world view. If I understand your world... read more...

Related Debates

	Affirmative Action Is A Good Thing
	Faith Is The Foundation Of Religion.
	People With Round Eyes Are Able To See More Than People With Slanted Eyes.
	To Be Tolerant Of Something Does Not Mean One Must Be Tolerant To Everything.
	African Americans Are Being Let Off Of Hate Crimes Too Easily
	The Veil Should Not Be Banned
	There Is Only One Race,
	Death Row Inmates Have Their Final Words Baned From Them. This Is Wrong.
	Get Rid Of Overdraft Charges
	There Are No "Human Rights"

New Debates

	MacDonalds Should Be Banned
	Porche 911 Turbo Is A Noticable Car On The Streets.
	If You Meet An Alien It Will Suck Out Your Brains.
	Chicken Is Nice
	That My Brother Doesn't Have A Dick
	That Modern Technology Is A Plague On Human Relationships
	Technology Is Tearing Us A Criminal
	Technology Is Tearing Us A Part
	Diet Coke And Mentos Is One Of The Best Experiments.
	Vegetarians Are Not As Well Balanced As Normal People.