Organism patenting in Africa - Coursework Example

They practiced these methods using DNA that was recombinant. Sometime after, Organism patenting was allowed after certain methods were seen fit to help with development and inventions. Patenting was allowed with one cardinal rule; that the patenting of living organism was and should be man-made. Since 1980, there have been many experiments that have been the result of patenting of the genetically modified organisms. Patenting of an organism includes the use of bacteria, viruses, certain seeds and plants.

Another group of organisms that can be used is non-human species, particularly animals (Kankanala, 127, 2007). Patenting does not only occur to the above named species. They can also occur from human cells, though these have to be in an isolated and manipulated state. Plants that are seemingly new and their seeds can be patented. Patenting does not come without its cost. There have been controversies that have gathered up from the time patenting occurred and has mostly been influenced by the concern over the expense of certain patented medicines and other tests.

There have also been concerns with genetically modified food which has brought concern as to whether the food originated from genetically modified seeds. Another main concern has been whether the farmers who plant the seeds of these plants have a right to harvest and plant the seeds. Each state has their own law regarding patenting rights, and some may allow certain patenting methods and organisms to be used while others may not. In this essay, attention will be paid towards patenting in Africa.

Africa has been known to have issues with food, disease and health. Patenting in Africa is brings about stability and improve the living condition by ensuring that organisms patented can be able to survive; that plants can be able to tolerate the unfavorable conditions of the soil topography (Kankanala, 158, 2007).  There is one issue however; organism patenting seems to do more harm than good. This is because despite the development of these organisms in order to make them more enhanced and beneficial, certain setbacks have proven to shake the foundation of the patenting scheme.

For the negative feedbacks that are gotten from these experiments, it is the end user who is suffering, not the inventor. Take a case where certain bacteria is modified, patented and is introduced into a community that has had problems with the plants systems and animals, in that their survival is challenged. If the modified bacteria solution does not go as planned; say after harvesting the crops and consuming them, those who will suffer the most will be the end users. What this means is that scientists are just using people as experimental objects.

They do not take responsibility and they must be liable to pay for their wrong doings. In a seemingly good society, they have introduced and organism that instead of doing a positive thing has turned out to be hazardous. It can be argued as a violation, but then again they may argue that it was just an experiment gone wrong. When patenting is done, it is done with the intention of making things and the lives of people more comfortable and lively. When this does not happen; when the opposite of good happens, responsibility is not taken by anyone.

Many individuals have become ill because of the consumption of patented bacteria; have become more ill because maybe the virus that was patented has not served its purpose, or