Crichton Vs Calfee

I am not positive that I would appreciate being told that I can’t do something with my body or contents thereof without permission to do so, in fact that individual might just be met with a what could be considered a cruel and vulgar response. There are two well educated men that differ on the matter. A reputable author, Michael Crichton argues the negative side of patenting genes in Patenting Life. While resident scholar of American Enterprise Institute John Calfee’s article Decoding the Use of Gene Patents justifies the use of patents on genes. Crichton and Calfee do not see eye to eye on the matter when it comes multiple issues to include but not limited to the standard in which the Patent Trademark Office (PTO) holds those who obtain
Crichton argues the contrary “The United States Patent Office misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings some years ago began to issue patents on genes” (440). Although this refers to how they began to patent gene the aspect that needs to be acknowledged is the PTO is unable to successfully listen to simple instructions thus unable to adhere to standards. Whereas Calfee seems to implies that they had a strict set of standards when talking about how patents are obtained stating “in order to satisfy PTO standards.” (444) implying that they in fact have standards that they not only implement on themselves but expect others to abide
Crichton clearly shows his stance on the topic simply talking about two congressmen who want to end the practice “Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice pd patenting genes found in nature.” (442). It is safe to assume if were up to Crichton himself he would end the practice altogether. As mentioned before Calfee does not see it that way at all, in fact against all opposition he states “On the whole, though, gene patents are turning out to work more or less the way patents are supposed to work and have been working for a couple of centuries and more. The research process, and ultimately patients, are the beneficiaries.”