The Instigator
MissInformed
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
puppylover
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gene Patenting is detrimental to society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
MissInformed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,227 times Debate No: 32547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

MissInformed

Pro

Debate rules: Cordial, friendly debate with no direct personal attacks from either side. No profanity or other inappropriate language.

Pro bears BOP in proving that Gene Patenting is detrimental to society. Con must prove that Gene Patenting is not detrimental to society.
puppylover

Con

You seem like a cool cat. I have no cue what gene patenting is but i just wanted to accept this debate to get out there, ya know. You see, me dream is to one day become a master debater that every one knows about. Thank you for your time and please get back to me!
Debate Round No. 1
MissInformed

Pro

That's great! Gene patenting is a controversial topic for many. It involves the patenting (for commercial, medical, or industrial uses) of a segment of the human genome, an essential part of who we are.
puppylover

Con

Ohhh. Well in that case i am completely for gene patenting. I think it could be extremely beneficial to society and would help further advance the world we live in.
Debate Round No. 2
MissInformed

Pro

I concur that promoting the progression of genetic therapy is beneficial. Conversely, gene patents could allow corporations to hold a monopolistic reign over a certain gene, driving up prices, and harming the consumers that wanted to buy the product.

If Company A has complete ownership of a gene, they are the only company allowed to make a treatment or cure for said gene. This means that people who require this treatment may only buy their medication from Company A. Company B cannot compete with Company A, because they have no substitute product. Company A may charge as much as they like for the product, because the people who need it will have to buy it regardless of the price.

This shows the detriments of gene patenting. A consumer who does not have the means to purchase the treatment they need is forced to either come up with the money or possibly die. It is undeniable that allowing patients to die because they can't afford a cure is detrimental to society.
puppylover

Con

cool story bro
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MissInformed 3 years ago
MissInformed
I fully agree with your idea that businesses could lose incentive. But there's a very fine line between incentivizing corporations and allowing them to capitalize on the misfortunes of others by potentially driving up prices on the very gene therapy that could treat or cure them.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
@MissInformed

Did you read the last part, where Michael Crichton denounced gene patenting and stated the reasons why it is detrimental to society?

Yes - very good arguments.
The big place where I differ is not in the idea that long term patenting is bad in all kinds of ways,
but in the fact that a lack of patent for intellectual property does not give enough profit incentive to
legitimate research. Gene patents that are too long would give the same problems as Crichton lists.

Short term patents may give a good balance.

There also need to be protections for the natural; owner of a gene sequence to avoid the crazy stuff at the core of the story.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I feel dumb. I misread it. I thought it said "parenting."
Posted by MissInformed 3 years ago
MissInformed
@gordonjames

I also read the book Next. Did you read the last part, where Michael Crichton denounced gene patenting and stated the reasons why it is detrimental to society?
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
to Ragnar -
the book NEXT is a good (fun) intro to some of the issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(novel)
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
Gen patenting allows those who work hard to reap a financial benefit from their hard/skilled work.

I would argue that gene patenting is beneficial.
I would argue that gene patenting needs to be short term and overseen by an international body.
(as opposed to national patent bodies that can be ignored by other countries)
Posted by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
Patenting genetic sequences that could potentially be used to cure diseases such as cancer and/or alzheimer's in order to sell for profit.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Please elaborate. I'd assume this means the parents should not raise their own children, but I have to make sure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LotusNG 3 years ago
LotusNG
MissInformedpuppyloverTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually knew what she was talking about, and debated.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
MissInformedpuppyloverTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Free win for Pro! I wish I had more people debate me like puppylover. A free win every time!