Legally, the gene must be a “composition of matter” in order to be patented. Many argue
that the genes in our body are no more fundamental product of nature and should not be
patented. Franco’s article was very in depth and it thoroughly explained the debate legally
and ethically when it comes to gene patenting. While gene patenting does encourage
research and development in private industries, it also hinders research and gives other
companies no opportunity to work with certain genes. All forms of gene patenting should
be illegal in order for stronger research and the ability for anyone to have to opportunity to
be tested. The first major issue when it comes to gene patenting is whether or not patenting
genes is actually legal.
Franco talks about how the patent system is meant for things that are invented and for
discovery. Obviously, genes were not invented but the argument is that gene patenting
protects the rights of those who discover forward development in the area of that certain
gene. I do agree that companies should be able to share in the profit for their certain
discovery but I do not think that they should have to buy our genes to earn that right. This
connects with what Layton’s article says. If three different companies find different
discoveries but those discoveries can somehow connect to each other, it would do no good
for us as humans because those genes would be patented and there would be no solution.
Research would be extremely hindered and medical results would slow down immensely.
