STORY: According to a University of Alabama at Birmingham, (UAB) medical ethicist, the question is not whether the rough draft of the human genetic code should be used commercially -- it should. The question is whether or not its use in research should be restricted to the patent holder.
WHAT: International debate has erupted over who will determine access to the rough draft of the human blueprint and if it should be used for commercial development. On Monday, France said that the human genetic code should remain public property and should not appropriated for commercial purposes.
WHY: "France's opposition to patents is a mistake because a desire to make money is the whole assumption behind patents," said Gregory Pence, Ph.D., author of the new book "Recreating Medicine: Ethical Issues at the Frontiers of Medicine" (2000, Rowman and Littlefield), "Individuals/companies should be allowed to hold patents on their discoveries," but licensing, which allows other companies to use the patented product/services, should be mandatory, Pence said.
"Companies that want to develop a useful human product should not be held hostage by someone holding a patent on a gene fragment," Pence said.
WHO: Gregory Pence, Ph.D., also is the author of the 1997 book "Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?" (Rowman and Littlefield). Pence is a professor of philosophy and medical ethics at UAB.
CALL: Gail Short, Media Relations, 205-934-8931/[email protected].
-30-
We are The University of Alabama at Birmingham. Please use UAB on second reference. We are not to be confused with the University of Alabama, which is a separate, independent campus.
RSS