Question

Discussion Prompt: One of the topics this week is Trade Secrets and in 2015 the US. Patent and Trademark Officer received more applications than at any other time in history.

One controversial area in which patents are granted is based on research conducted on human DNA. This raises the ethical question of whether a person or business should be able to own the patent for prescription medications based on another person's DNA. Assuming that there is an exchange of goods or services as the result of research based on the DNA of Person A (such as patients taking medications or researchers developing new formulas):

1) Should the pharmaceutical company own Person A's DNA?   

2) Should Person A or their family receive any royalties?   

Give reasons to support your answer and include references to the ethical theories discussed in class.   

Answer 1

A patent is a form of intellectual property. A patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, and importing an invention for a limited period of time, usually twenty years.

1. Basically , all the newly invented drugs are first tested in animals and by using their cells and then it's applied in human cells . Earlier there was a legal law that pharmaceutical company cannot own human beings cells . But again a court order came and it was modified back to owning human cells for trial purposes . The company should own Person A's DNA by following the rules and regulations required in this process because until and unless we see the effect of the medication on human cells we can't apply it to treat disease conditions .

2. Yes, Person A or their family should recieve royalties as they are providing their own cells to conduct the research . It worths to provide royalties in terms of money for treatment purpose , travel expenses , provision of free drugs etc.