Gene patenting and ethical concerns in medical accessibility

Patenting Genes: should it be considered unethical?

Issue Synopsis and Opinion

Gene patents are patents given for a specific isolated gene sequence, its chemical composition, ways of obtaining or using it, or for a combination of all of these. It is, put in other words, a patent accorded to someone who has discovered a newly discovered gene, or modified it in such a way that it may be useful for diagnosis and treatment. Gene patents are a category of the larger subject of biological patents accorded for any specific discovery that is biology-related.

Gene patents are accorded for isolating a natural sequence of the gene, using it for medical / contributive purposes such as diagnostic testing, or altering it by adding a promoter or some other modification that can make it helpful for treatment and possible prevention of disease or pathological human condition.

What gene patenting, in effect allows, is for an individual or an organization to own certain unique segments of DNA which may code for certain diseases, psychological / physical conditions, or certain proteins. The permission to claim exclusive ownership over these unique DNAs is controversial with opponents claiming patenting of these genes unethical.

The USA has only provided patents for isolated gene sequences that have known functions and so far these patents have not been applied to the naturally occurring genes in humans or to any other naturally occurring organism.

The Argument for considering Patenting Genes as unethical

The human genome is a different business enterprise than other patent applications. The genome stands for essential building blocks of the human species and, therefore, questions of human dignity and ethics should be studied. Business people, lawyers, or those involved in the medical field and hoping to gain a tidy profit may see nothing wrong in gene patting abut raise this question amongst a layperson audience and they are likely to be discomfited.

Human DNA represents the essence of a human being and, therefore, is very different than patenting a real or intellectual property that is essentially inanimate. Patenting the human DNA treads on the dignity of the human being. Humans are more than the sum of their genes and cannot be simply reduced to a code.

Patenting human genes raises various ethical questions, another of which may be setting prices on certain treatments margin the burden of receiving treatment therefore too high for certain people and raising the flap between rich and poor. The decision of who should and should not receive treatment should not rest within the hands of a few individuals or organizations but this is what patenting would achieve.

Issue Synopsis and Opinion

Energy researchers have developed a model called Hubbert's Curve that seems to indicate that oil is running out. As oil recovery technology has been introduced, this curve has lengthened leading some to say that we can continue relying on resources of oil. However, the curve is still there and contraction in oil supply has an enormous effect on the way that America functions in many aspects of its life.

There are two major dimensions to the oil crisis. The first is a management dilemma about how to control this reduction of oil that may pit business against business and raise taxes amongst other hugely unpalatable consequences.

The second is an industry crisis caused by an environmental threat of how to adjust the automotive industry to minimize the damage done to the environment by burning of fossil fuels. If the world has to resort to alternatives, the question is how the automotive industry should respond.

The Argument for relying on oil

The recent revolutionary advances in technology will overcome problems of oil shortages and yield sufficient quantities of oil for the foreseeable future.

Advances in technology include the following three areas:

1. Directional drilling

2. Horizontal drilling

3. 3-D Seismic technology

Furthermore, concern of oil running out is unwarranted at least in America where, rather than running out of oil; we have the potential of vast oil and natural gas reserves that still remain to be discovered.

We should not block oil and natural gas development in America or elsewhere since it only makes it more difficult for us to meet the demands for these products and failure to develop these resources will result in economic expense and wastage.

Oil enhances our quality of life in so many ways. One day, oil will no longer be the world's dominant energy source, but until then there is plenty of oil for many, many years.

The argument for searching for alternative sources of energy

The peak of oil production, so-called Hubbert's Peak, was the important turning point in our species' relationship to petroleum. Then USA passed its oil peak in 1970 and since then production has dropped steadily. Since we continue consuming more and more oil, however, this means that we have import about two-thirds of our oil and this will only increase.

Some say that there is possibility of potentially large resources still to be found in America, but this is a miasma. Moreover, American natural gas-production is also declining at 5% a year despite frantic drilling, and there promises to be grater declines ahead.

Unless strong conservation efforts are implemented, the new scarcity of oil will destroy much that we have taken for granted in our lives. Changes will include climate change, epidemic disease and population overshoot.

There is no 'hydrogen economy', nor can we rescue our way of life with "renewables." The only solution may be nuclear power despite all its problems. And oil conservation. It is an emergency that we will have to get used to.