How do you feel about biotech companies holding patents to our genetics blueprints and guarding them with teams of lawyers? These patents include ownership of genes related to breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and epilepsy. That means that they can stop other people from doing any research whatsoever involving these genes. That’s like holding patents on sunlight and charging people money to use it. Even though I think that most biotech companies are ethical and put utmost value on human lives. This patent business stifles science and may prevent timely drug discovery. It is one thing to hold patens on drugs they develop but to hold patents on human genes which we all carry?
2006-08-07 04:51:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
wmcritter: I work for a biotech so I'm putting my paycheck on the line with this argument...But stifling science because of profit goes against the very core of why biotechs exist.
2006-08-07 05:08:09 · update #1
We are not talking about money hungry 100 year old big pharma here...we are talking biotech..
2006-08-07 05:11:13 · update #2
wmcritter: genome patents last 20 years. That is "forever" in the science world. There are no drugs involved. only novel technologies that are patented. with all due respect, you need to understand the ? first. Capitalism NEVER comes before human lives.
2006-08-07 05:19:23 · update #3
It's kind of hard to answer...a good question. I think that if you remove the incentive to make money, that may hinder science even further. I think I would support limiting the time on that patent, even further. Or maybe classifying a couple of diseases each year that are exempt, such as breast cancer, or AIDS.
2006-08-07 04:58:03 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. We need to allow businesses to patent what they find so they can recoup their costs. Without this protection, nobody would do the research. For example: if identifiying a gene costs $100 million, that company needs to be able to sell products to recover that cost. Who is going to spend $100 million on research if there is no way to protect what they find and make their money back?
Patents don't last forever. Eventually, other companies will be able to develop and sell products. But while the patent is in effect, the patentor can try to make their investment money back and invest in new research. It's capitalism, it works.
2006-08-07 12:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you know something is wrong with humankind when patents on human genes begin to occur, just like going to war for oil or public policy being determined by $$$.
2006-08-07 12:06:45 · answer #3 · answered by Dr.Feelgood 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont think its fair but its just another example of government control... government agencies fund research on a variety of things but when the results of these researches turn unfavorable to big business & economical power they bury the research & cover it up..gotta love government
2006-08-07 11:57:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is not fair - whoever said life was? You have to remember, as well, that this travesty was thought up by lawyers and agreed to by judges who used to be lawyers.
2006-08-07 11:57:10 · answer #5 · answered by smgray99 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps the concept is they spent millions mapping them out and using their research to your financial benefit robs them???
2006-08-07 11:56:01 · answer #6 · answered by alaskanecho 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess that's why they sometimes call life a rat race, there's just so many rats out there.
2006-08-07 11:55:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would take your argument more serious if you didn't type like you were 13.
2006-08-07 11:55:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋