Organism Patenting Issue - Assignment Example

 Organism Patenting Introduction Organism patenting is a very controversial issue. However, before delving into the controversies, it is important to gain an understanding of the meaning of both terms. This will assist in making sense of the arguments for and against the practice. An organism is a form of life and relates to anything that is living and that is able to function on its own. Living things include plants and animals. Plants and animals are capable of reproducing and there are many forms in which this reproduction takes place. This paper focuses on plants that people depend on for food and to earn a living. Some farmers depend on plants to make a living and so they grow them commercially by sowing seeds. These seeds may be from a previous crop or from seeds purchased. Some of these crops grow without anyone planting them. Examples of this form of reproduction include pollens blown by the wind or pollens transported by birds. These are just some of the ways that nature intended for plants to reproduce themselves. The term patent is associated with intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights are given to people for their inventions (WTO 2012). These rights relate to copyrights and industrial property of which inventions are a part. Inventions are protected by patents (WTO 2012). Patenting is one of the mechanisms by which companies or individuals seek to protect their profits which results from an invention (Cohen et al 2000). A patent provides its owner with protection over intellectual property. This paper looks at the issue relating to patenting using two moral frameworks – ethics of virtue and social justice. An analysis is also provided. It concludes with a solution based on each of the two frameworks. The issue relating to organism patenting In times gone by, farmers would grow crops and replant the best seeds in order to maximize their harvest and therefore their earnings. That means they would save the best of their corn, wheat and other crops in order to replant for the next planting season and in order to facilitate a good harvest. Some of the seeds that were saved were also sold to other farmers. Over the years, diseases and other environmental conditions have been having a deleterious effect on some of these plants and farmers have not been able to reap the desired yields after planting in some seasons. However, through research and various inventions some companies have been able to modify various strains of these seeds that when planted would result in crops that were resistant to certain types of diseases and pests as well as cold and drought (Hettinger 1995). These plants are referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). GMO’s in food result from the modification of plants through the introduction of genes from other plants, and in some cases from animals and plants (Burton et al 2001, p. 479). Although consumers have their concerns farmers tend to benefit in a lot of instances as these seeds result in a much better harvest when compared to the seeds that are not modified. While some farmers purchase these (GMO) seeds some do not for various reasons. In fact, the use of genetically modified organisms in food has been a cause of concern among consumers especially in Europe (Burton et al 2001). On purchasing these seeds, farmers agree not to save seeds for re-planting or for sale to other farmers. However, because of the way nature intended organisms to reproduce and multiply some farmers without even knowing or even planting these genetically modified plants have had to deal with them in their farms. They start growing on some farms due to the process of pollination and cross-pollination. When this happens, companies who own patents such as Monsanto lose revenue and so they have investigators who visit farms in order to make a determination whether they have planted genetically modified seeds. Farmers have been sued whether or not they have deliberately sown seeds that have been genetically modified. This has cost farmers thousands of dollars as the laws are stacked against them and they do not want to waste time and money in lengthy court battles. In fact, Monsanto has one all of the court cases relating to patent infringement. In fact, Ikuta (2009) indicates that one firm has had to pay $10,000 in licensing fees and $75,000 from their 1998 profits even though the infringement was as a result of contamination. This act should not be allowed to continue as it violates not only the ethics of virtue but also represents a social injustice towards farmers. Ethics of Virtue The ethics of virtue requires that we do onto others as we would have them do to us. Farmers are now required to buy new seeds for each planting season instead of saving seeds for replanting. These farmers are not used to doing this and it is a very costly exercise. In fact, Ikuta (2009) points out that in the past free seeds were distributed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Although genetically modified seeds may result in a bigger harvest there is really no justification for farmers having to continue to buy new seeds infinitum. There must be another way to recover cost and to make everyone happy instead of continuing to tax farmers who are the backbone of any society. Companies like Monsanto are spending millions of dollars just to investigate farms to determine if they are growing seeds without obtaining a license to do so. These sums could be channelled into something else. After expending once, these farmers should never be forced to purchase new seeds when they have seeds of their own and as a result of their hard work. It is so ridiculous that Monsanto and others could spend so much time and money carrying out investigations that result in farmers being sued because a bird or the wind dropped or blew pollens onto a farm resulting in a strain of crops that was never intended or even desired. The fact is that not all farmers are desirous of planting genetically modified plants because not all consumers in the market desire them. However, the way nature intended reproduction cannot be changed and it is no fault of farmers that birds or even the wind dropped pollens from GMO’s in their field. They should not be allowed to pay for something they have not done. Since there is really no safe way to prove this and by nature this is possible it is very unjust that the courts could allow patent holders of genetically modified organisms to succeed with something that they have no real control over. Though they have been able to manipulate things so that plants can be disease resistant and so that a higher yield can be obtained from a harvest there is really no justification. Instead of hiring investigators which requires such a large outlay of funds that money could have been used to perform new research to benefit the society. The farmers have benefited somewhat from the use of these seeds but they have been used to obtaining different varieties and planting the best of them Social Injustice Social justice requires that people are treated equally and with respect. These farmers are used to a particular way of operating. They are used to selecting the best seeds and saving them to be replanted later. Both genetic engineering and the patent system have basically disregarded this practice (Ikuta 2009; p. 731). They are now been forced to purchase seeds every time they want to plant a new crops. That means if they have seeds they have to throw them away because they cannot replant them based on the license agreement with the patent holder. These farmers are now operating at the whims and fancies of patent holders. Monsanto and other companies who own these patents have sued not only farmers who have replanted seeds from previous crops resulting from GMO’s but also farmers whose farms have been contaminated with these seeds. The farmers whose farms have been contaminated have never planted seeds that have been modified. In fact, their farms have been contaminated by natural processes as nature intended - the birds and the wind. However, in spite of this they have been forced to reward Patent holders for what they have not requested. They have had to pay large sums because it would be too costly for them to prove there innocence. Ikuta (2009) points out farmers would lose their crops since the process of proving their innocence would lead to the destruction of their farm and therefore their livelihood. How the plants came to grow n a farmer’s field is not relevant under United States patent law. The law does not give due regards to the act of nature and therefore punishes farmers for what happens naturally and through no action on their part. It is really the same as blaming someone for something that they have no control of. They are the ones who have tampered with nature. Not all farmers want plant crops that have been genetically modified as they can earn substantially from growing crops organically. In fact, people are becoming more and more health conscious and are willing to pay more for organic foods. This factor should be consideration before making judgement on matters regarding organism patenting. Conclusion In relation to the social justice, the patent holders should also be asked to compensate farmers whose fields have been contaminated. This means that farmers who do not want to grow genetically modified plants would be compensated if their fields become infected. Here everyone pays. Social justice would require that the patent holders allow for a one time license that allow for replanting of seeds after an initial purchase. Additionally, the government should be asked to pay a sum to the inventor to compensate for the time and energy as long as it relates to plants. This will allow farmers to make easier choices and prevent them from paying unnecessarily high costs. In furtherance of the practice of social justice the government should not allow for the use of terminator technology which allows seeds to grow for only a single crop, as this could signal the end of seed saving. References Burton, M., Rigby, D. & Young, T. (2001). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), p. 479 – 498. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. & Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not). [Online] Available at: http://www.business.otago.ac.nz/ECON/courses/econ432/Secure/NBER_patent_paper.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2012] Hettinger, N. (1995). Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property, and Environmental Ethics. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 22(2), p. 267 – 305. Ikuta, B. (2009). Genetically Modified Plants, Patents, and Terminator Technology: The Destruction of the Tradition of Seed Saving. Ohio Northern University Law Review. 35, p. 731-749. World Trade Organisation. (2012). What are intellectual property rights? [Online] Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm [Accessed 25 October 2012] Read More