• Yes, human genes must be patented

    This discussion needs to look ahead 10 years into the future and realize that cloning will be a very real thing. Animals have been successfully grown, and this year scientists even grew a human ear on a mouse, then transplanted the ear! Once cloning becomes a real part of society, criminals will be ready and waiting. Just like how identity theft blew up with the internet, talents will literally be stolen to be copied! In a natural world, it would be silly to patent human genes. But we don't live in a natural world. We will in a scientific world.

  • No, genes are produced naturally.

    Patenting genes is just a way for humans to try and control the type of children they have, or to manipulate the way they look or behave. This can get very complicated, and is way too close to playing God to actually be effective in the long run. Patenting a gene and making someone pay to use it is also a selfish venture for financial gain, since some genes could help to save a person's life.

  • Of course not

    How could such a thing be done? The idea is preposterous. Genetic material is reproduced naturally and without the necessary intervention of another party and therefore should not be regulated by patents or other government regulations. It sounds like a logistical nightmare and just another way for a select few to make money.

  • No way

    We are not a company to be trade marked, I don't believe we should patent human genes at all.

    People with the best and healthiest genes should mix in with the rest of the population and help us grow healthier not try and copyright their DNA to profit off their good fortune.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-04-14T02:11:40.100
There are two polar extremes here. If genes are allowed to be patented, one gene could be owned by a single company, causing a monopolistic environment in which gene therapy might become expensive, low quality, and difficult to access without the choice of a competitor. However, if genes cannot be patented, researchers might simply choose not to invest in a field with no potential for monetary gain. This could lead to a lack of exploration of the field, potentially leaving cures that may have been possible, undiscoverable for the patients who require them.

Which extreme is more harmful? Who's to say, really?