Abstract
While endeavoring in several other fields, such as medicine, biotechnology has greatly changed agriculture. However, some questions concerning ethics and legality are now being raised due to this development. One of the most debated issues is human gene patents, which give a person or corporation ownership over who can modify their genetic material’s code exclusively. Some believe that patents may lead to new inventions and research. Others maintain that it is problematic when a ruling body wants to patent human genes. The article, therefore, looks at the relationship gene patenting has with human dignity from various perspectives.
Introduction
First and foremost, to comprehend gene patenting, it is necessary to understand the argument. Patents are licenses given by law to protect intellectual properties, this includes any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter as the Act of Congress defines them under 35 U.S.C
S.101(a)(1). Patents ensure only one person or company has control over how these products can be made, sold, or used for up to 20 years after being granted. In the biotechnology field, there have been patents approved for such things as, a part of DNA that was cut out from the rest of genetic material, methods used in the process of alteration, and tests designed for detecting diseases in man that depend on gene factors.
Supporters of gene patenting contend that a major argument is its stimulation to the scientific explosion. This happens because when granted unique rights, companies and scholars are motivated through money given by patents to ensure that they make huge investments into DNA research which could otherwise be quite expensive and time-consuming. In the view of many people, the absence of future medical treatments or diagnostic equipment can be experienced because some of such things may only come into existence if they can be patented.
Gene patenting debate on ethics closely relates to the concept of human dignity. This dignity is the inherent worth of each human being, which should be appreciated and safeguarded. Opponents claim that when genes are patented, they destroy human dignity by turning life’s basic elements into commercial commodities. Letting for-profit companies own specific portions of the human genome means there is a danger of treating people like assemblages of parts that can be patented instead of individuals with inherent worth.
Ethical Principles
The principal concern from an ethical viewpoint is the question of the “ownership” of genetic information or material. From another direction, it is disturbing to centralize control of how our bodies are formed by permitting people to possess naturally occurring elements located within them otherwise known as genes. This problem worsens even more with patents that may curtail genetic testing and therapy access thereby jeopardizing people’s capacity to know what is good for them health-wise.
Apart from that, doubts about justice and fairness are on the ground. This can transform gene patents into heaving monopolies, with patent owners dictating prices and availabilities of genetic tests and therapies. It may worsen health inequalities so much that life-saving treatments are out of reach for those without financial muscle; ultimately making it difficult for everybody to be viewed as fair or right.
Legal Landscape
The legal landscape of gene patenting is complex and evolving. In the United States, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013) ruled that naturally occurring DNA sequences could not be patented because they are products of nature. However, the Court also held that complementary DNA (cDNA), which is synthetically created, is patentable. This ruling attempted to balance the need for innovation with the principle that natural phenomena should remain free for all to use.
There exist divergent practices towards gene patenting internationally. Unlike some countries in Asia that do not allow gene patenting, it is mandatory in South Korea for any gene either alone or with a vector when it comes to the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMO). It is left to the discretion of each EU member state to decide whether or not they will provide for such protection within their national patent laws. On its part, EPO has agreed that isolated genes may be patented if they have been removed from their natural environment and have a specific industrial application. Such a notion underscores the ongoing tension between promoting biotechnological innovation and protecting public interest.
Conclusion
Legal scholars and ethicists are in favour of different changes to resolve the dilemmas created by gene patenting. While some of them support a stricter method by focusing only on new and non-natural things, some take other approaches. Some of these include suggesting government funding for studies on different diseases through grants from research agencies or forming collaborations between different entities for using public resources which may eliminate the need for patents.
Written by Esha Jaiswal, Legal Intern at Intepat IP
