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
gene patents to, how and when a gene patent should be used and whether or not the patenting of genes should continue.
With the title of a government agency one would think that everything is up to par and everyone staffed within said government agency is able to effectively do their job and adhere to a set standard.
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
by.
When it comes to the matter of when and how gene patents should be used obviously the two, Crichton and Calfee, are on completely opposite sides of the fence. Neither are indifferent but rather utterly convinced that gene patents should or should not be used. Crichton shows his disdain for gene patents many times throughout the writing saying ”The bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake….”(441). In another instance he entirely questions the legitimacy of the practice inquiring “Why should people or companies own a disease in the first place? They didn’t invent it” (442). Whereas on the other hand Calfee believes otherwise when he is speaking about those who actually file for the use of patents stating “A little-appreciated part of this story is that a lot of these patents have been filed not by private firms but by universities on behalf of their researchers.” (444) showing that patents are not only filed for use by big organizations and businesses out of greed and for pure profit but to instead further research and innovation which is one of Crichton's biggest points against gene patents multiple times throughout his writing.
As far as the issue on whether or not the patenting of genes should continue this is yet another topic that Crichton and Calfee are not in agreeance as they are on most if not all of the aspects concerning gene patents.
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.”
(445).
Overall as you can see from the overwhelming amount of evidence stated above that Crichton and Calfee are complete and polar opposites when it come to bioethics and gene patenting, even though each writing was not a response to each other they just view it differently. Although there are many more examples that could be made as far as their point of views on this topic goes, as stated they at the very least disagree on matter pertaining to the PTO, the different ways that gene patents are used and last but not least the continuation of gene patenting.