Written Assignment Unit 5

University of the People

BUS 5115-01 Business Law, Ethics and Social Responsibility
Jacent Gayle

March 6, 2024

Introduction:
Agricultural-Biological-Technology is a fast-growing industry in recent times. Organizations

spend a vast amount of time in research and development to construct genetically modified

organisms (GMOs). Hence it is important to analyze if these organizations should be granted

patent safety for their findings? This paper seeks to answer in alignment of granting property

rights through patents to organizations involved with modified organism development.

Additionally, a there will be support to a counter argument while taking into consideration

concerns as it relates to sustainability, environmental and community.

Position Supporting Patenting Modified Organisms:

Research and Development is a prime focus for there to be new groundbreaking discoveries and

breakthroughs in the world. Hence it would be important for there to be protection for patents for

modified organisms. The efforts it would take financially and intellectually to construct a new

"gene" that enhances the nutritional value of food would be tremendous. Organizations may be

reluctant to carry out large investments and using up all their resources if they do not have rights

to protect them. Intellectual property is very valuable and would be important to protect it so that

you do not lose it, this is very much important for patents (Juetten, 2013).

Patents are a driving source that pushes for organizations and individuals to be innovative as

creators are offered a small time for exclusiveness whereby these organization can reap the

profits of their discoveries. This serves as a tool to motivate organizations to push the needles to

partake in risky and pricey ideologies, as in the case of the new gene. Ultimately this can be

groundbreaking to address food shortages and malnutrition on a world scale.

Additionally, this can raise the bar among organization that are in the industry of agricultural-

biological technology. This can lead to competitive advancements and further developments for

these new genes. Having reassurance about exclusive rights boost organizations to invest in

further research, resulting which then filters into more groundbreaking products which can

benefit the society.

Counter Position Towards Patenting Modified Organisms:

Many counter that patenting modified organisms, generates a concern that can have negative

impacts on the environment and communities. A prime concern regarding creating a new gene

for that would make food more nutritious is that exclusive control of patents makes resources

like seeds become restricted. Similarly, to human DNA, “gene do not just exist in nature but

within us, determining many of our individual of our individual characteristics. Hearing that

someone owns a patent on a human gene feels personal, unlike a computer or medical device

patent.” (Lamb, 2012). As for both the new gene in for food and human genes, patent control can

lead to organizations having a lot of power on their side. Hence, they will use their power to

exploit smaller organizations, harm communities with reckless testing and be ethically

unsustainable.

As these patented contents may be in the long run bad for biodiversity, making it hard to dispose.

This would create a domino effect of potential diseases that may arise. Organizations such as

Greenpeace have made it their duty to push for preserving ecosystems and the natural

biodiversity of the environment.

Recommendation:
It is a tough decision whether to provide patent protection rights or to be against it. While patents

bring a sense of innovation and investment, issues such as about exploitative control,

environmental sustainability, and adequate access to resources should not go unheard. Therefore,

patent rights should not be provided as it presents too many risks in the short term and long term.

The structure of nature in terms of food sources should not be tampered with. Essentially, there

can be alternative ways such as having more abundance of food available to ensure that there is

not a lack of nutrition in poorer areas of the world. This is something that world leaders should

invest in to create a plan for future generations to benefit.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is a complex decision on whether to grant patent protection for genetically

modified organisms (GMOs) in the Agricultural-Biological-Technology industry. There are

many debates that support both sides of the spectrum as for or against. The potential hazardous

consequences of patents must not go unnoticed, even though they are essentially mechanisms

that can be very innovative in research and development. The potential negative consequences

can impact future generations to come whereby biodiversity can face intense hardship.

Essentially if large corporations have exclusivity with patented genes this can become a new

global power, which raises international, ethical, sustainability and exploitation concerns.

Global leaders should be proactive to identify where nutrition can be a concern and place

alternative strategies to mitigate the situation. Their focus should be on the premise of

emphasizing the preservation of the environment to the utmost degree. Ultimately protecting

nature whether human flesh, natural food or forestry should be important for generations to be

able to reap from them.

 Reference

Lamb, J. (2012, July 13). Gene patenting: Ethical and legal issues. Science Policy For All.

https://sciencepolicyforall.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/gene-patenting-ethical-and-legal-issues/

Juetten, M. (2013, August 27). What is Intellectual Property & Why Do I Care?. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDKxuTi2Cmk

YouTube. (2013, April 20). Gene patents: 5 things you should know. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v8sfc36OtI