Review of Michael Resnik, Owning the Genome: A Moral Analysis of DNA Patenting [Book Review]

Politics and the Life Sciences 23:75-77 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This book is devoted to showing that with the single exception of patents on people's whole genomes, DNA patents are morally permissible. Resnik begins with three useful background chapters: one on recent controversies over DNA patents in the United States and abroad; another on the basic science of DNA, as well as research and product development related to DNA; and another, especially useful, chapter on the legal nature of patents and intellectual property. The focus of moral evaluation is patents as they are set out in American law. These give their holders a right to exclude others from producing, using, or commercializing the patented item for twenty years. Items that can be patented include products, processes, and improvements thereof. However, a patentable item must issue from human ingenuity (as opposed to nature); this rules out laws of nature, natural phenomena, and naturally occurring living things and chemical compounds. Of course, in its natural form, DNA is not a product of human nature and therefore not a candidate for patenting. However, since 1980 American law has deemed it patentable in isolated and purified form (in this form, Resnik reports, up to 95% of the sequences in the artificial sequence are in the natural sequence). Turning to ethical issues, Resnik argues for the permissibility of both the general practice of patents, as well as patents on DNA. The general practice is morally defensible because patents produce public benefits, protect private rights of ownership, and strike a reasonable balance in doing so. The public benefits include, in the near term, scientific, medical and agricultural discoveries and innovations; the central long-term benefit is the lower prices that come after the patent has expired and the patented item is publicly disclosed for others to market. Patents help to bring about all of these benefits by providing a legally protected twenty-year monopoly, thus functioning as powerful economic incentives. They thereby also protect private rights of ownership; but even here the public good is not overlooked, since patent-based monopolies are constrained in various ways to protect the public good (e.g..

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Who “Owns” Cells and Tissues?Karen Lebacqz - 2001 - Health Care Analysis 9 (3):353-368.
Ethics and the patenting of human genes.Annabelle Lever - 2001 - Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 1:31-46.
DNA Patents and Human Dignity.David B. Resnik - 2001 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 29 (2):152-165.
Who “Owns” Cells and Tissues?Karen Lebacqz - 2001 - Health Care Analysis 9 (3):353-368.
A metaphorical history of DNA patents.Ivo Silvestro - 2016 - Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 10 (2):49-63.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
7 (#603,698)

6 months
7 (#1,397,300)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Murphy
University of Indianapolis

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references