2 of 3

Write now Article Tools

The biotechnology revolution presents a growing crisis to the existing architecture of patent and copyright structures in Western society. The use of biotechnology has increased exponentially since humans have come to understand the structure of DNA and how to manipulate it. This has brought about a new era in society one in which humankind can control the basic blueprint of life. A number of discussions and debates have arisen from advances in biotechnology, one being the patenting and ownership of genes. Corporations file patents on gene fragments at an unimaginable rate, thereby spurring research into genes and their functions. It is naive to assume that innovative and creative research will continue to blossom in an industry becoming increasingly driven towards producing profits. Recently, the topic of gene-patenting has evolved into more than just an issue of concern amongst scientists and researchers religious and moral implications have arisen. Those opposed to gene patenting citing religious reasons argue that genetic engineering is equivalent to playing God. As well, controversy has risen over whether genetic material satisfies the basic criteria for patenting under U.S. and European law. As indicated in the previously expounded arguments, patent laws should not be extended to genes identified by the Human Genome Project.

Extending patent laws to genes covered by the Human Genome Project may distort incentives for research to financial incentives, thereby leading to a poorer quality of work, a decrease in collaboration within the scientific community, and the creation of a barrier to innovation. Researchers who previously were content with the non-pecuniary gains of paper publication may be forced to seek patents in order to be successful. It follows that the increasing pressure on a scientist to produce patentable work may shift the research focus to finding patentable subject matter rather than something that is genuinely beneficial. This focus on finding patentable subject matter will also increase competitiveness among scientists, thereby reducing collaboration and breaking down the Cartesian scientific method. While conducting research, it is unreasonable to argue that a scientist should, upon his or her own initiative, determine if the genetic material he or she is working with is the intellectual property of another individual or organisation due to the sheer time and expense required to conduct such an investigation. Even if scientists could

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should human genes be patented?
We want to hear your view. Write now!