|
To Whom It May Concern:
The process of patenting
genes in our society is something I believe is not beneficial for our
society because it provides both the chance at a genetic monopoly, but
also, it is being selfish towards having the opportunity to own a gene, or
part of one, without even knowing what it is or what it does. Genetic
patenting is the process in which scientists patent sections of gene
sequences to keep for their private usage and individual research.
Recently, however, the process has come under fire by some critics and
professionals in the genetic field of science. Furthermore, based on the
research I have read through, I believe that patenting genes is not a
benefit and would move research in genetics in a negative direction.
Some scientists, and
yourselves at the American Medical Association, believe that patenting
genes is a benefit, and in some ways, it could be viewed as one. In one
case, a scientist could potentially find an important gene and patent it,
forcing others to pay for its use. The scientist could profit from his
discovery and potentially further his research and could possibly come up
with many more beneficial genes. In another matter, patenting genes can be
seen as a “race.” Scientists would have a new found motivation to discover
newer genes, or sections of other genes. Instead of dwelling upon one gene
that has already been discovered, scientists could move along and try to
find new ones that could be beneficial to our society. These benefits seem
to be perfect and work well with where science is moving, however, these
are immediate benefits and would not bode well in the long run, as they
would turn into huge risks and possibly a letdown for genetics and
everything related to that topic of science.
The risks for gene
patenting are plentiful and substantial, and, the impact of these risks
are much worse than the benefits of this process are good. The three most
important risks that can be seen with gene patenting are the realization
of a genetic monopoly, the loophole that a patent can be made for a
certain section, without even determining its biological function, and the
fact that scientists are patenting what is potentially nature. The reality
of a monopoly could prevail with the familiarization of patenting a gene,
and with that monopoly could bring trouble to the world of science. One
scientist, or company, could control a large portion of genes and/or
sections of genes that could be used to find cures to diseases and
sicknesses. This would have all the medical and pharmaceutical companies
purchasing that certain section from that one company. The company, or
scientists, could raise their prices to any level, due to the fact that
they are the only holder of that gene, because they have the patent for
it. The second risk with gene patenting is that a scientist can patent a
gene, without even knowing about its biological function, and whether or
not it is even beneficial to society. So what began a race to “expand the
horizons” of science, would eventually turn into a contest to see who
could patent the most genes and stock up to try and make the most money.
The problem with this is that scientists could possibly be spending money
on something that could not ever be beneficial to our society. Also, with
the collection of all the genes, they could potentially just sit there
without ever being touched for years, while the scientist that discovered
it tries to research on another gene it had patented before. Finally, the
third risk to patenting genes is that people are patenting nature. Genes
are a part of DNA, which is found in the nucleus of every cell in our
body. Cells are produced by the body and grow from the moment the egg cell
and the sperm cell come together. Cells are produced naturally within our
bodies, and for that matter, any animal’s body as well. So when people try
to patent genes, genes can be considered nature. This process could highly
be considered unethical by many professionals.
Once again, after reviewing
research and information found on credible websites, I believe that gene
patenting is not a benefit, but in fact a risk to our society. The small
possibility of a monopoly within genetics is just a disaster waiting to
happen and is something that would greatly hurt other researchers, as well
as the people that need that gene to produce medicine or other products
for the consumer. I suggest that instead of supporting the process of
patenting genes, maybe you should see it from a broader standpoint that
sees into what this idea could turn into as the human genome is further
discovered. Even those scientists who originally discovered the human
genome agree that patenting sections of it is bad, both economically and
ethically. As your website says “We help shape the future of medicine,”
but are you really helping the shape of medicine. In the future, when a
medicine that could be greatly needed by the consumer, needs a gene that
has been patented by a scientist who charges a great deal of money for its
use, is it really helping shape the future of medicine, or just asking for
a monopoly of the human genome to occur. I appreciate the time you have
spent reading this letter, and I hope you have taken into consideration
the risks and benefits stated in it. |
