Law class
MNGT 3280
Spring, 2013
Yinye Wang
What are the facts?
What are the critical issues are you see them?
What are the ethical implications of each possible alternative outcome the court could choose?
Does the desire to patent this human gene violate important values?
Is it that?
Has the patenting process been fair in its application?
Is more than one correct alternative? Which values are in conflict? Which of these seems more important to you? Can you find an alternative that would be consistent with your values, weighting the business interest with societal interest?
The fact is a Utah biotechnology company called Myriad Genetics patented its discovery which is two genes isolated from the human body. But some opponents which including a group of researchers, medical groups and patients sued this patent as invalid. The Critical issues are How Court identifies Myriad’s discovery, does it belong to nature or not. The key points that Myriad holds are this patent is a reward for their invention and locating the gene and isolating BRCA have never been available to the world before. But for the people who challenging the patent, they believe this patent improperly puts a lock on research and medical diagnostic testing and gene is part of nature, which Myriad is did discovery not Invention. The ethical implications if the court chooses to keep patent because Myriad’s hard work and unique technique will encourage other medical discoveries like this and it will become a leading case which created a new patentable thing in gene area. On the other side, even through Myriad did not invoke its right to block others’ research on this, but patent still have some negative effect like researchers cannot share information with their patients and expensive bone test. If the court chooses to repeal the Myriad’s patent, it may make some medical institution including Myriad lose their passion to discover new stuff in new area
Spring, 2013
Yinye Wang
What are the facts?
What are the critical issues are you see them?
What are the ethical implications of each possible alternative outcome the court could choose?
Does the desire to patent this human gene violate important values?
Is it that?
Has the patenting process been fair in its application?
Is more than one correct alternative? Which values are in conflict? Which of these seems more important to you? Can you find an alternative that would be consistent with your values, weighting the business interest with societal interest?
The fact is a Utah biotechnology company called Myriad Genetics patented its discovery which is two genes isolated from the human body. But some opponents which including a group of researchers, medical groups and patients sued this patent as invalid. The Critical issues are How Court identifies Myriad’s discovery, does it belong to nature or not. The key points that Myriad holds are this patent is a reward for their invention and locating the gene and isolating BRCA have never been available to the world before. But for the people who challenging the patent, they believe this patent improperly puts a lock on research and medical diagnostic testing and gene is part of nature, which Myriad is did discovery not Invention. The ethical implications if the court chooses to keep patent because Myriad’s hard work and unique technique will encourage other medical discoveries like this and it will become a leading case which created a new patentable thing in gene area. On the other side, even through Myriad did not invoke its right to block others’ research on this, but patent still have some negative effect like researchers cannot share information with their patients and expensive bone test. If the court chooses to repeal the Myriad’s patent, it may make some medical institution including Myriad lose their passion to discover new stuff in new area