Patenting Life Crichton Summary

In today’s society where scientific research is ever present. do individual companies and other groups have a right to lay claim to individual genes in the human body, or is the practice of patenting genes a bad idea? In his work entitled “Patenting Life,” famed author Michael Crichton uses several illustrations of why he believes the practice of issuing patents on human genes is not only a bad idea, but goes against common sense. Saying “you cannot patent snow, eagles, or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either” (Crichton 442). Crichton compares “owning” a patent on a gene to some of the most majestic things one can observe in nature. The powerful visuals offered in that statement calls to the reader a clear and firm comprehension of how passionately Crichton feels about the topic of gene patents. His comparison to genes and other things in nature captures the reader’s attention firmly as he begins to build his case against patenting genes.
Crichton also goes on to state that patents on genes are hurtful because they can create a single owner market on the treatment of diseases. This effectively drives up the costs of healthcare due to the monopoly created by the
An example used was the reluctance of researchers to study the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004. Reading this, the question “would fewer have died if not for patent fears” surely is in the mind of the reader.
Crichton concludes by praising the efforts of two politicians, Xavier Becerra (D, CA) and Dave Weldon (R, FL) who introduced legislation to prohibit the patenting of genes found in nature. The bill entitled, “Genomic Research and Accessibility Act” is touted heavily by Crichton. The author claims “This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us (Crichton