First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Should Human Genes Be Patentable?!? Nature vs. Human Creation!!?!?!What about Religion!!?!??
970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Samsara
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
The Supreme Court ruled that human genes cannot be patented... /: This terminated Myriad Genetics patent's on 2 genes that correlated with an increased risk for breast cancer!!! the main question decided in the case was whether isolated human genes are products of nature, and consequently not patentable or if once extracted from cells, the genes become sufficiently altered to count as a human invention....The court say's they remain product's of nature /: The people backing the court's opinion say that holding patent's on genes lag scientific progress stuff and patient access to the care (higher price in care), cuzz Myriad hold's a monopoly of the use of the genes in testing and treatment's(until the patent expires).. The supporters of Myriad say the court's decision hurt's 25 years of patenting and investment's(, research and development or maybe not the development..,) already made... and will thwart the progress of drugs and vaccines in development..


i think this reduces the incentive for Big Pharma to go after science needed identify genes or proteins and potentially create treatment's that those gene's may cause.. and find protein target /: or somethin... But i agree with the supreme court's decision because it's the product of millions of years of evolutionary processes...


IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ALL THIS PLEASE JUST ANSWER THE SELF EXPLANATORY QUESTION...
45508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / West
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
love you, but extended discussion ^^
45488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/13/13
I support the patent of genes.

It's a business. It's not about whether it's the "product of nature" or not. If your company is the one who discovers which gene is responsible for cancer, why would you let others use YOUR findings to make money for themselves? It's illogical.

It is the nature of business to patent discoveries you funded your research on.


But I doubt the Supreme judge is any knowledgeable in business or science; simply saying "it's the product of the nature" doesn't really support the decision.
148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Underground
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
No, genes should not be patent-able.

Thing about it.

Let's say someone patents the gene for dark brown hair. Can that person sue everyone that has dark brown hair?

That sounds ridiculous to me.

--- On a side note, people actually do patent genes for genetically modified plants seeds, but that still a bit iffy to me because they can actually sue if those seeds just happen to get blown into another farmer's field and start growing.


I do think patents are good for protecting people from getting their original ideas stolen, but....greedy pigs take it way to far.

192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
I think no because if they did, I think we'd be heading to some real cyberpunk shit. Things like this always have a really shitty downside. Not sure what it might be though.
18774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
I don't support patents for anything, so of course my answer is no; human genes shouldn't be patented.
9974 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Demacia
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
I don"t support it, this is going way to far! where is the line drawn?
For example i saw a music video were in the future humans were made with predestined jobs that fit their genes which made them the most productive at that certain job.
when you start looking at dna and genes as resources than you cross the line. Human geneis are not products to be claimed.
Research and other things like that are ok but when you treat them as products for investment or for claiming you have gone too far!
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
Religion has no say in the matter, I don't want religion halting something that could bring about the future.
I don't care if they are patent-able or not, just whatever brings us closer to the FUTURE
toxxin 
38081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / In my own little...
Online
Posted 8/13/13
well they didn't create it so they can't patent it. they may have sequenced it or discovered that it was the gene that had a high risk for whatever it may be but it already existed. Patents are for inventions not discoveries, there is a difference.
6551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/13/13


It sounds like you're trying to make people. Edward is not pleased.
12143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Massachusetts, USA
Offline
Posted 8/13/13

Angerudusto wrote:



It sounds like you're trying to make people. Edward is not pleased.



Right on!!! He'd be pissed!

2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 8/13/13
I don't really agree with being able to patent anything, to be honest. I don't think profit is a healthy motivator for progress.
18276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / San Antonio, TX,...
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
I also do not believe in patentable genes from which were already existing and not created from humans.
18189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Online
Posted 8/14/13
I would totaly try to guess the genes of the next royal baby.
And own them.
14606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 8/14/13
Absolutely not , by allowing it then no scientific progress could be made when it comes to treating diseases like breast cancer and even if there was progress almost no one would be able to afford the treatment anyway, because the company that made it would only care about profits so only the rich would be able to afford it. So I stand by the court's decision, because allowing for human genes to be patentable is just disgusting and wrong .
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.