The Supreme Court is poised to take up the question of whether human genes can be patented. But some say advances in the field may blunt the impact of its ruling.
The Supreme Court is deciding whether genes are patentable or not. Genes control so much about a person. Can a sequence of nucleotides naturally occurring be patented? Myriad argues that limiting their patents would set back the biotechnology industry, including genomics and genetically modified food. The incentive to continue research would be lost and the billions of dollars spent so far would be for naught.
But I don’t believe this argument. Academia and independent labs research gene sequences without the extensive patents. The publishings are peer reviewed, and it is the essence of science for knowledge to be added onto by the intellectual and creative genius of the community. I personally believe that it is much more beneficial for the information to be shared, not patented. The more people that can see, read, understand, and discuss, the more the field of science can grow. The more the field grows, more solutions will be available. Isn’t this the point of science, to learn about the world and apply it?
Furthermore, how can a company patent a naturally occurring phenomena? I thought patents usually locked down the method of creation, not the product. (For instance, if a person built a robot, he could patent the method he used to install the internal connections. This information would be his alone, but someone else could always build a robot with another method.) I will look up more about the legal system of patents regarding what they cover and how long they last. But I digress, the genetic code is billions of years older than a company. Who should argue to patent something so much older than ourselves?
Life is more than simply surviving
I don’t want to simply survive; I want to truly live. Live free. Make little things fun. Make the day lovely. Smile. Laugh. Strive for my goals.