Friday, October 8, 2010
Owning a genome
Should a large company be able to own a genome. Some large companies have genetically engineered organisms so that they are beneficial in some way (plants resistant to disease, microorganisms that clean up oil spills, etc.) should they have exclusive rights to these organisms and be able to sell them at a premium to those who need/desire them? What kind of consequences does this type of "ownership" have?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
This is most definitely a highly controversial topic. I would tend to say that I am torn on which side I agree with. A large company should not have the right to own a genome on terms that the genetic make up of an organism solely belongs to that organism. An example is if one had genetically modified a flower and found out someone else was growing that flower on their land because of seeds blowing there in the wind. If they wanted to sue the person for accidently growing that flower on their land, that would be wrong in my opinion. The flower itself cannot control where it goes and the fact that it's DNA was modified by someone. Although the argument stands that the person who genetically modified said flower, wants to have the right to produce this organism and not allow anyone else to do so without specific payment and agreement. This also makes sense because if one had spent the money to gentically modify something, then they would hopefully be doing it for business and money purposes. Overall I would tend to say that no, I do not believe a company can own a genome on my belief that one's genetic make up cannot be owned or have a price tag.
I agree with Katie on this, this is a hugely controversial topic! I personally don't agree with a company owning a genome however, it is completely natural for plants' seeds to blow around in the wind onto other plants, even in other crops. So to try and say that someone can be sued for nature happening, that's totally wrong.
I'd really like to hear more comments about this one. What are other peoples sides of this question?
I actually feel that a company does have the right to own a genome. If they put lots of hard work into developing something, only to have it stolen, then they should be able to claim it as theirs. However, it is not fair when some of the genomes is moved by nature into another persons lot, and they get sued. Large companies should have the right to "own" the genomes, but not sue poor farmers.Genomes can be put to good use, and once important ones are made, the company should own them, or have a monopoly. You create it, you own it.
A genome is a living thing, I don't think that we should be able to own any living thing, even if you created it.
I agree with katie that this is a very controversial topic. It is hard to know when someone is taking it to far (ex. the flower katie pointed out)or when someone is just testing DNA and what you can do with it. One has to wonder if the day will ever come where someone else owns your own personal DNA. Its too hard to say what "crossing the line" really is. Who knows, maybe one day you will be able to access someone else's genome with just a click of a button on google. Or maybe you will be able to buy a piece of someone's genome on ebay.
Here is an article I found that is quite interesting about what is to come in the near future if we continue the path that we are on...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/genome-as-commodity
i found this interesting article in national geographic about human genes and patenting them
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
I believe that depending on the type of genome it is should determine if a company or a person should be allowed to own a specific genome or organism. If it is a living organism found in nature then I don't think that you should be able to own it, but if you spend money,time and research to create a genome that was non-existant before then you should be able to own it. Mutation both beneficial and harmful happen all the time in nature and for someone to be able to capilize on nature is simply unethical.
What if a company who is looking for profit on a genome-such as the patented seeds that farmers are required to purchase every year instead of saving their own seed-What if those companies were required to donate a certain amount (15%-20%)into useful reasearch or to making the world a better place. Then the companies would be doing it not only for the money but also for the good of humanity.
Super interesting article Kalin, thank you for that. I find it amazing the so many human genes have patents on them. Although it does make sense that if you are researching a drug that may affect that particular part of the body that you would need unlimited access to that gene and need to replicate it millions of time. Owning it would decrease the costs associated with it.
hmmm... I just never thought about that before.
I agree with katie that this topic is very controversial, but I also agree with Neil. I think a company should have the right to own a genome even though it is living. I believe that whatever you create you own. Big companys do work hard to create these things so we should let them own them. There are cases where they should not be aloud to sue farmers for "stealing" the genome. I agree with maddie that it is a thing of nature and it is not fair for an innocent farmer to be punished for that in any way!
I read in the new york times that the American Government is trying to ban the ownership of genomes by large companies. It said that "human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry."
to read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/business/30drug.html?_r=1&sq=human%20genes&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1290013851-0TuuzJG2P8cPGE+PEKboKw
Post a Comment