Philosophical Musings and Ruminations - Essays - On the Conundrum of Owning a gene

Although I was working on a continuation for my previous post, but a recent article in The Economist about the recent raucous on patented genes (the story on The Economist ) has prompted me to write this.

The issue has been put up against the patents on genes being awarded to research agencies which would give them exclusive rights over that particular gene for extensive research. But is it right? This sounds much like a science fiction to me. How could someone own a gene? The human genome took millions and millions of years to develop and become what it is today. If anyone should be granted the patent, it must be Mother Nature!!

While the legal issue is interesting, my focus will be on the philosophical aspects of the matter. After all, it was once perfectly legal to own human beings—so what is legal is rather different from what is right.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the ownership of genes is a stock consequentialist argument   (Consequentialism) . If corporations cannot patent and thus profit from genes, then they will have no incentive to engage in expensive genetic research (such as developing tests for specific genes that are linked to cancer). The lack of such research will mean that numerous benefits to individuals and society will not be acquired (such as treatments for specific genetic conditions). As such, not allowing patents on human genes would be wrong.

While this argument does have considerable appeal, it can be countered by another consequentialist argument. If human genes can be patented, then this will allow corporations to take exclusive ownership of these genes, thus allowing them a monopoly. Such patents will allow them to control the allowed research conducted even at non-profit institutions such as universities (who sometimes do research for the sake of research), thus restricting the expansion of knowledge and potentially slowing down the development of treatments. This monopoly would also allow the corporation to set the pricing for relevant products or services without any competition. This is likely to result in artificially high prices which could very well deny people needed medical services or products simply because they cannot meet the artificially high prices arising from the lack of competition. As such, allowing patents on human genes would be wrong.

Naturally, this counter argument can be countered. However, the harms of allowing the ownership of human genes would seem to outweigh the benefits—at least when the general good is considered. Obviously, such ownership would be very good for the corporation that owns the patent.

In addition to the moral concerns regarding the consequences, there is also the general matter of whether it is reasonable to regard a gene as something that can be owned. Addressing this properly requires some consideration of the basis of property.

John Locke presents a fairly plausible account of property: a person owns his body and thus his labor. While everything is initially common property, a person makes something his own property by mixing his labor with it. To use a simple example, if Bill and Sally are shipwrecked on an ownerless island and Sally gathers coconuts from the trees and build a hut for herself, then the coconuts and hut are her property. If Bill wants coconuts or a hut, he’ll have to either do work or ask Sally for access to her property.

On Locke’s account, perhaps researchers could mix their labor with the gene and make it their own. Or perhaps not—I do not, for example, gain ownership of the word “word” in general because I mixed my labor with it by typing it out. I just own the work I have created in particular. That is, I own this essay, not the words making it up.

Sticking with Locke’s account, he also claims that we are owned by God because He created us. Interestingly, for folks who believe that God created the world, it would seem to follow that a corporation cannot own a human gene. After all, God is the creator of the genes and they are thus His property. As such, any attempt to patent a human gene would be an infringement on God’s property rights.

It could be countered that although God created everything, since He allows us to own the stuff He created (like land, gold, and apples), then He would be fine with people owning human genes. However, the basis for owning a gene would still seem problematic—it would be a case of someone trying to patent an invention which was invented by another person—after all, if God exists then He invented our genes, so a corporation cannot claim to have invented them. If the corporation claims to have a right to ownership because they worked hard and spent a lot of money, the obvious reply is that working hard and spending a lot of money to discover what is already owned by another would not transfer ownership. To use an analogy, if a company worked hard and spent a lot to figure out the secret formula to Coke, it would not thus be entitled to own Coca Cola’s formula.

Naturally, if there is no God, then the matter changes (unless we were created by something else, of course). In this case, the gene is not the property of a creator, but something that arose naturally. In this case, while someone can rightfully claim to be the first to discover a gene, no one could claim to be the inventor of a naturally occurring gene. As such, the idea that ownership would be confirmed by mere discovery would seem to be a rather odd one, at least in the case of a gene.

The obvious counter is that people claim ownership of land, oil, gold and other resources by discovering them. One could thus argue that genes are analogous to gold or oil: discovering them turns them into property of the discoverer. There are, of course, those who claim that the ownership of land and such is unjustified, but this concern will be set aside for the sake of the argument (but not ignored—if discovery does not confer ownership, then gene ownership would be right out in regards to natural genes).

While the analogy is appealing, the obvious reply is that when someone discovers a natural resource, he gains ownership of that specific find and not all instances of what he found. For example, when someone discovers gold, they own that gold but not gold itself. As another example, if I am the first human to stumble across naturally occurring "Unobtanium" on an owner-less alien world, I thus do not gain ownership of all instances of "Unobtanium" even if it cost me a lot of money and work to find it. However, if I artificially create it in my philosophy lab, then it would seem to be rightfully mine. As such, the researchers that found the gene could claim ownership of that particular genetic object, but not the gene in general on the grounds that they merely found it rather than created it. Also, if they had created a new artificial gene that occurs nowhere in nature, then they would have grounds for a claim of ownership—at least to the degree they created the gene.

Philosophical Musings and Ruminations - Part Uno - Intelligent Design and Meaning of Life

"There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation" - Donald A. Crosby

"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself" - Jean Paul Sartre

Finally I am back after a long time. But still unable to think I decided to write some excerpts from my diary, on which I have been scribbling for the past four years. 

I've been considering and rewriting this particular post for a few months now. My problem is the approach. Given that I've had such difficulty I'll try to be straight forward and see how everything turns out. Simply put, my query is that if we were in fact made then what is to be gained from the existence of humanity? Not in the form of a metaphorical or existential quandary  rather a very literal what is the end goal purpose of the human race. Assuming we were designed I would imagine it was with a purpose even if that purpose was to satisfy some curiosity. I can not conceive a scenario in which any sort of omnipotent or omniscient deity would be responsible in particular considering any flaw in a creation reflects a flaw in the creator therefore if it was a deity they could not be considered either. Even if the flaws were intentional to some unknown purpose. 

I see the potential for where we could have been created and yet I see no evidence of that being the case or to be more precise being that if that is the case then there was no follow through once the experiment started. In opposition, I see the potential for how we were born of chaos which I see plenty of support for and yet that too is incomplete. One particular point of interest is that if we were of chaos and therefore have no implicit purpose, how then among the chaos have we established dominance and mastery essentially removing ourselves from the chaos while remaining within it?

For those of you that would dare to bring religion directly into this discussion let me just shut you down right now. If we were created as glorious representatives of some all powerful being and that's all, then that all powerful should be damn ashamed of itself. Not only is that level of egotistical vanity so far off the charts but they clearly failed or if they succeeded then we need only look at the failure itself that is humanity as a representative of how horrific such a being is. Humanity is clearly not something worthy of praise and if there is such a vain being then it too is unworthy of praise.

Jean Paul Sartre, in his book "Being and Nothingness", gave a very nihilistic view of life that it has no inherent purpose. It is up to you to make your own purpose in this life and your pursuit of your own purpose is what will define you. This is a question of what the human race as a whole is meant for if it was created on purpose by something capable of such creation rather than by chance.  

If we were created the only conceivable ends to our purpose,  is our end itself to which I find ample evidence to, suggest that if we were created it was to study the nature of death itself. Not only are we to study it but also to provide example for others to study, others being not only ourselves but our creators if that is the case. In this potential scenario of intelligent design I understand how every facet of our existence is created to perpetuate an experiment revealing the details of life and death on a scientific level so they might be understood by others.

The question then if that should be the case is what would happen to humanity when the experiment ends? What if it has already ended? If death is now understood completely and entirely by the creator/s then what are the results and how should the experiment end?

Approaching the concept of humanity as if I were using it as an experiment using deductive reasoning I can only conclude that death is the most likely purpose of the experiment and on that note I have yet to discover a proper dissolution of the experiment given that I am not as objective to the concept as I should be. I can only imagine that our end would come suddenly if at all perhaps the experiment was designed so that we will destroy ourselves as a final test or proof of theories or that we will be allowed to continue without interference to establish secondary attributes of death such as addiction or contagiousness either of death directly or power over death. Though it may be far beyond that and it may also be simply that the experiment is nowhere near completed yet which only leads me to question what the next round of tests will be like...

Oppression or Culture?

Squeezed between the Republic Day and the anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi's assassination was the Jaipur Literary Fest. A fest marked not only by the presence of exalted personalities but also by hypocrites.Well, we may extol the virtues of "ahimsa" but we have just surrendered to the threats of violent rioting. Salman Rushdie, the high profile controversial writer was continuously threatened and lots and lots of pressure built on the government to disallow him a visa...only to realise later that Rushdie being a PIO didn't need to have a visa to visit India. At last, he chose not to visit the JLF. 


All this petty shenanigans by the self-proclaimed pro-religious orthodox has made me think a lot about censorship and that "elusive" democratic freedom of speech. I totally sympathise the organisers of the festival. Let down as they were by the spineless Rajasthan government, who had a keen eye on the Muslim vote bank in the current elections, they did their best. They were personally threatened by a baying mob of bearded youths who invaded the festival compound promising murder and mayhem if Rushdie was allowed so much as a video link (as Germaine Greer said at the time of the Danish cartoons row, “What these people really love and do best is pandemonium”). As cited by Richard Dawkins:

Here are two possible reasons one might offer for kowtowing to a violent threat such as was visited on the Jaipur Literary Festival last week.

1. I shall give in to your demands to suppress freedom of speech, purely because I fear your threats. But don’t for one nanosecond confuse fear with respect. I do not respect you, I despise you and everything you stand for – especially given that your faith is apparently so weak in argument that it requires violent threats to shore it up.
   
   It seems to me that there is nothing reprehensible in such a response. It is not cowardly, simply prudent, and Nick Cohen praises Grayson Perry for using a milder version of it. But the same cannot be said of the following:
   
2. I shall give in to you because I know that freedom of speech is not part of your culture. Who am I to impose Western, colonialist, paternalistic ideas like freedom of speech on your very different and equally valuable culture? Of course your ‘hurt’ and ‘offence’ should take precedence over our purely Western preoccupation with freedom of speech, and of course we’ll cancel the video link.

On American campuses, they held that if a man so much as looked around with a lustful eye, or called a young female a ‘girl’ instead of a ‘woman’, he was guilty of gross sexual impropriety. Yet abroad it was “more or less OK for a cabal of regressive theocratic bigots to insist on the chador, to cut off thieves’ hands and put out the eyes of offenders on TV, and to murder novelists as state policy. Oppression is what we do in the West. What they do in the Middle East is ‘their culture’. Leftists could not make a stand, because to their minds defending Rushdie would at some level mean giving aid and comfort to racists and strengthening the hand of the one enemy they could admit to having: the imperialist warmongers in Washington, DC.

During the mid 1950s, Pandit Nehru addressed a Conference of Newspaper Editors. He advanced the interesting notion that Freedom of Speech and Expression had not been granted to good editors alone; it was most necessary for the bad editors too. It would be easy to say that editors should use their freedoms responsibly and in national interest. Of course, bad editors would do no such thing; they would print scurrilous articles. But then who is to decide who is a good editor and who is bad? If this is left to the government, then predictably only "chamchas" will survive as editors and the honest ones who spoke the truth to power would be hustled off to jail as bad editors misusing their freedoms.

Nehru’s remarks are even more apt now than ever before. I was struck by Justice Katju saying that Salman Rushdie was a poor and sub-standard writer who would have remained unknown except for his scurrilous book The Satanic Verses. This, he is quoted as saying, is much more fundamental issue than merely banning him. Of course, every one is entitled to his own literary standards. I hope the Booker Prize authorities take note of what Justice Katju has said and immediately withdraw the original Booker Prize for Midnight’s Children and its prize as Booker of Bookers of over 25 years. But even a poor substandard writer deserves to be able to write and be read by such tasteless people who prefer him to better writers. A writer’s freedom of expression and for all of us the freedom to read and write as we please is not granted on a quality adjusted basis......but that's all the talk of principles,right? and when one offends you at the emotional level you don't really then care about the principles.

So if someone offends you or your religion, your basic reaction would be try and stop him from doing it. Everyone does! it's the basic human instinct that composes your reaction. But there are several ways of doing it. The reaction which we all saw at the JLF reminds me of the concept of "The Heckler's Veto". It is the shorthand for the proposition that if someone dosen't like an idea, he tries to veto the expression of such an idea by threatening public safety and this is what happened with Salman Rushdie. Those ignomarus fatwa-mongers tried to veto the expression of his thoughts and succeeded. How were they successful, is a totally different topic and I wouldn't delve into it. But the very canonic question is why? Why go against the very nature of your religion and order someone's killing? Why threat someone? If there is freedom of speech, there also is freedom to hear! You don't want to read it or hear about it it's ok! don't deny us! You were offended? Fine! Why don't you publish another book defying all of the facts and praising your religion! If you believe so much in your religion why not give the general public a chance to decide? open yourself to criticism and tell everyone what a glorious past your religion has had. Why just threaten and try to shut up the person before you? It only reveals your doubts in your own religion which you might be trying to cover up!!

Well, in a country like India it is a common sight....the people doing legal things are often afraid of people doing illegal things. It is not the first incidence. Apart from Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, M F Hussain were all heckled. Bajrang Dal threatened Hussain for drawing nude pictures of their deities....well why don't they go and demolish Ajanta and Khajuraho!! 

As cited above: that when it is done in the west we see it as oppression but here it's all in the name of protecting our culture......well that's the irony. I would like to cite another incidence by Dawkins :

"When I publicly tackled Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Britain’s leading ‘moderate’ Muslim, on this very question, he repeatedly evaded it before finally conceding that death is indeed the prescribed punishment for apostasy but pleaded that “it is very seldom enforced.” So that’s all right then. Roll on the (‘inevitable’ according to the Archbishop of Canterbury) Sharia Law. Sir Iqbal who, by the way, was knighted for services to ‘community relations’, said of Salman Rushdie, at the time of the fatwa, “Death is perhaps too easy for him.”

Oh but of course, we mustn’t be shocked, it’s their culture and we must respect it."