Business Case Should Patenting Genes

Business Case Should Patenting Genes Be Understood as Unethical? Summary of Sides As the human genome is now mapped and genetic manipulation is more and more possible, the question of whether or not genes -- which are organic material -- can be patented without violating basic ethical principles regarding the inherent value of life and that might arise in practical issues where health issues cannot be properly addressed ue to patent blocks.

Miriam Schulman argues that genes are a part of life and as such should not be thought of as pieces of patentable technology that can be traded, sold, and owned in such an exclusive and mercantile manner.

Further, she feels that, "If the bar for patentability is set too low, it will pervert the incentive structures of the patent system," suggesting that not only are genes worthy of protection from patents in and of themselves but that the patent system itself and the ethical good it promotes could be damaged if genes become patentable (p. 334). As not entirely unique and possibly naturally repeatable "inventions," genes should remain free.

Anabelle Lever disagrees, pointing out that many genes have already been patented and that genes that receive patents are highly unique and have been altered by laboratory processes. Lever does not disagree that that human genes are un-patentable, but contends, "Though the genes in your body are not patentable, the degree of manipulation and alteration that is required to isolate and identify a human gene scienti-cally means that genes so altered and manipulated can merit a legal patent" (p. 338).

The basic contention in this argument is that patentable genes are not and never will be naturally occurring, and thus are not the same as natural human genes. Analysis Annabelle Lever makes a very strong argument for her case, and is ultimately convincing in her assertion that the degree of manipulation necessary to create a patentable gene warrants their continued patentable nature without ethical fears entering the picture.

While it is important to respect life and the building blocks of life and to ensure that these building blocks do not suddenly fall under ridiculous legal restrictions or controls, it is also important to encourage progress in the new and still emerging area of gene creation and manipulation.

Continuing to allow patents for genes and recognizing the ethical good that these patents can produce is important as brave new worlds of medical and technological capabilities are continuously invented, and limiting these patents out of a misguided fear that they will lead to control over life or the reduction of.