1. At first glance I like this analogy it says that humans are part of god’s greater creation and all parts should not be able to be patented. Yet to compare human genes to ‘snow, eagles or gravity’ is faulty because of the differences are too major. Gravity is a scientific theory while humans are beings.
2. Crichton uses very convincing firsthand testimonial for support of his claim. His data was an actual case of gene patenting research and the resulting costs. Yet this could be an exception to what is happening; one or two cases don’t make for entire support for his claim that gene patents are having a detrimental impact on research. His pleading seems to appeal to fear to distort the reality of the situation. His rebuttal to that shows data where it is the reality [Hepatitis C and BRCA gene patents]. He is convincing in his argument that gene patents block innovation or at least rise the cost of health care in the future.
3. Currently the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act is not a law. According to GovTracks it was proposed as H.R. 977 in the 110th Congress to prohibit the patenting of human genetic material. The most current ruling on gene patents came on March 29, 2010 where a federal judge’s decision to strike down a company’s patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The judge ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” since they depended upon isolating the DNA from the body in order to supposedly make it patentable. The plaintiffs had also argued that the patents stifled research and limited patients’ testing options. Also, in March of 2010, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on patentability; stating that “the patent law has always been directed to… inventions of a practical use,” and further that “patents are not awarded for academic theories, no matter how groundbreaking or necessary to the later patentable inventions of others.” As a member of Congress I would ensure that the laws that we have on the books are implemented in the manner which they were intended such as no patents for academic theory or living things.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has introduced a bill to require the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a study on effective ways to provide confirming genetic diagnostic test activity where gene patents and exclusive licensing exist, and for other purposes into the 112th Congress.
In conclusion I would support efforts to make the benefits of the decoded genome accessible to all.
Sources
AAAS Policy Alert, Retrieved November 22, 2011, from http://www.aaas.org/spp/policyalert/policyalert20100331.html
H.R. 977--110th Congress: Genomic Research and Accessibility Act. (2007). In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved November 22, 2011, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-977&tab=related
H.R. 2276--112th Congress: To require the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a study on.... (2011). In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved November 22, 2011, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2276
No comments:
Post a Comment