The discovery of a small group of Gambian women with an apparent immunity to HIV infection
Scientists have determined that Ashkenazi (European dissent) Jewish women have an increased genetic susceptibility to breast cancer.
For more on the breast cancer (BRCA I and II) patents, which gave ownership of this gene to a private corporation in Cambridge, Mass (Myriad Genetics), see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html
---
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html
---
Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, evolution is still happening. We are the "top dogs" or "top of the food chain" for now but everything around us and inside of us is still changing with or without our consent.
The new issue that is coming to pass is the idea of a given company OWNING these genes. Imagine for a moment that you are one of these people with a special gene, and little pieces of you technically don't belong to you. Would you feel disgusted, would you want your genes back? Especially having not given them up with any sort of consent?
Once again man shows his wish to dominate nature, though in this case the "nature" of the human body and it's jeans explicitly overlap with culture in the fact that it is the case of parts of human beings being owned by others.
This is a topic I have just been introduced to and will be delving into further even after Anthropology is over for fall quarter. It is incredibly interesting in the world of anthropology, as well as medical ethics. I wanted to introduce it to anyone listening who maybe hasn't heard of the topic before and see what you all thought. Any input or discussion would be interesting and worthwhile as I continue to investigate further myself.
-Stephanie
The new issue that is coming to pass is the idea of a given company OWNING these genes. Imagine for a moment that you are one of these people with a special gene, and little pieces of you technically don't belong to you. Would you feel disgusted, would you want your genes back? Especially having not given them up with any sort of consent?
Once again man shows his wish to dominate nature, though in this case the "nature" of the human body and it's jeans explicitly overlap with culture in the fact that it is the case of parts of human beings being owned by others.
This is a topic I have just been introduced to and will be delving into further even after Anthropology is over for fall quarter. It is incredibly interesting in the world of anthropology, as well as medical ethics. I wanted to introduce it to anyone listening who maybe hasn't heard of the topic before and see what you all thought. Any input or discussion would be interesting and worthwhile as I continue to investigate further myself.
-Stephanie
Just to play devil's advocate, I'd like to bring to light the most common argument FOR ownership of human genes. Usually, what people say is that since companies have to invest huge amounts of money to research a way to make the benefits usable (in the form of a drug, for example), they then should have the right to make a profit off of their work. They may also say that preventing companies from patenting genes would remove the incentive to develop new drugs/what have you.
ReplyDeleteI think this actually calls into question the legitimacy of a system based on property ownership. I can't help but feel that medical and scientific thought should be driven by genuine moral concern for others, rather than desire for money, and that the system of property ownership is teaching our society that money matters more than what's inside your mind.
It seems that a system based on Usufruct rights might work better--that is, a system in which everyone has the right to use that which is necessary to him or her, provided there's enough of the resource to go around. Of course, implementing something like that would require a complete restructuring of modern society, so ...maybe I'm being too radical. Everyone is already used to measuring their achievement in monetary terms, so they would probably feel as if there was no reason to continue working.
So, maybe Usufruct rights aren't a solution to this paradigm clash you're talking about. I just feel that capitalist society is an extremely unsuccessful attempt to establish a meritocracy. The system is designed to reward people based on their input to society, but it instead distracts from society and shifts people's focus to the rewards.
Maybe the reason that people are so resistant to socialism is not that it is inherently flawed as an ideology, but rather our brains are simply locked into the "acquire property" mode. But now I'm totally out of my area of expertise (if I can even claim to have one).
Anyways, interesting stuff.