Patenting Modified Organisms in Agricultural-Biological-Technology to Protect Property Rights
Agricultural-biological-technology is at the cutting edge of innovation, with the ability to address major global issues such as food security and nutrition (Kurian, 2019). In this article, we will propose that enterprises that produce modified organisms should be able to protect their intellectual property rights by patenting such creatures. We will provide arguments in favor of patents as a means of preserving research and development spending. In addition, we will discuss counterarguments and actively evaluate societal, economic, and environmental sustainability challenges.
Legitimate Arguments in Favor of the Position
Argument 1: Protecting Research and Development Investments
According to United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.), patents are a technique for protecting the payoffs from research and development efforts. Businesses that invest significant resources in the creation of modified organisms deserve protection to encourage ongoing innovation. Companies can recuperate their investments in agricultural-biological-technology by patenting their findings, which stimulates additional study, progress, and possible breakthroughs (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2020). This provides a competitive environment that encourages innovation, assuring the ongoing development of more healthy and sustainable food alternatives (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2020).
Argument 2: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems
The patenting of genetically modified organisms encourages the development of sustainable agriculture techniques (Kurian, 2019). According to the research done by The National Research Council (2004), The companies that invest in gene modification research are able to improve agricultural attributes including nutritional value, drought resilience, and insect tolerance. These improvements help to make food production systems more efficient and sustainable (Kurian, 2019). Businesses may market their modified organisms and share the advantages of their research by giving property rights through patents, supporting advances in sustainable agriculture and solving societal and environmental problems.
Argument 3: Encouraging Investment and Collaboration
Patents create a sense of security and exclusivity to firms, encouraging investment in agricultural-biological technologies (Kurian, 2019). Companies may be discouraged from investing in dangerous and costly research activities if they do not have patent protection. Patents attract investment money by giving property rights, allowing corporations to extend their research efforts and engage with other stakeholders such as academic institutions and government agencies (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2020). Collaborations of this type improve information exchange and hasten the development and implementation of novel solutions for sustainable and healthy food production.
Legitimate Counterarguments Against the Position
Argument 1: Restricting Access and Innovation
Patenting modified organisms may limit access to vital genetic resources and stymie future progress (Kurian, 2019). Patents establish exclusive rights that can prevent other researchers and organizations from expanding on or exploiting the technology for future developments (United States Patent and Trademark Office, n.d.). This limitation may hinder collaboration and impede progress toward finding long-term solutions to global concerns.
Argument 2: Ethical Considerations
The patenting of genetically modified organisms raises ethical problems about the ownership and management of live beings (Greenpeace, n.d.). Life forms and their genetic makeup, critics claim, should not be recognized as intellectual property and subject to private management. Patenting organisms may result in the commercialization of nature and the consolidation of power and authority in the hands of a few firms, possibly jeopardizing the larger public interest (Greenpeace, n.d.).
Argument 3: Impacts on Global Food Security
Some people worry that patenting genetically modified organisms would increase global food inequities and stymie attempts to attain food security (Kurian, 2019). Exclusive property rights can result in increased costs and limited access to genetically modified seeds or crops, especially for resource-constrained farmers in underdeveloped nations (Greenpeace, n.d.). This may limit their capacity to embrace new technology and handle local food concerns, maintaining agricultural development inequities (Kurian, 2019).
Persuasive Argument
In this paper, I am in favor of businesses that develop modified organisms being able to preserve their property rights by patenting such organisms. It’s because I believe that we have to Balancing The Innovation and Sustainability. While ethical issues and unrestricted access to genetic resources are legitimate concerns, awarding patents to companies producing modified organisms achieves a compromise between innovation and sustainability. Patents encourage investment and research in agricultural-biological technology, resulting in breakthroughs that can address food security, nutritional deficits, and environmental issues (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2020). However, it is critical to guarantee that patent rights do not impede broader social benefits or limit humanitarian access to key genetic resources.
To address these issues, authorities should create a balanced framework that protects intellectual rights while also protecting the public interest. This might include mandatory licensing measures that allow governments to secure access to patented technology when it is vital to preserve public health or accomplish sustainable development goals (Kurian, 2019).
Conclusion
Finally, enterprises that create modified organisms should be allowed to protect their intellectual property rights by patenting such creatures. Patents safeguard research and development expenditures, promote sustainable agriculture methods, and encourage collaboration. However, it is critical to find a balance between innovation and sustainability by taking ethical issues into account and allowing free access to genetic resources. Policymakers may foster innovation, solve social concerns, and guarantee that genetically modified organisms contribute to a more sustainable and nutritious future by enacting appropriate protections within the patent system.
References
Greenpeace. (n.d.). Genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Retrieved May 8th, 2023 from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/what-we-do/food/
Kurian, J. (2019). Intellectual property rights and sustainable development in agriculture. In Handbook of Research on Sustainable Development and Governance Strategies for Economic Growth in Africa (pp. 17–40). IGI Global.
National Research Council. (2004). Safety of genetically engineered foods: Approaches to assessing unintended health effects. National Academies Press.
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). General information concerning patents. Retrieved May 8th, 2023 from https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). Retrieved May 8th, 2023 from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020). Intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. Retrieved May 8th, 2023 from https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/genetic_resources/
This article is written based on University of The People Business Law, Ethics, and Social Responsibility (BUS 5115) written assignment by Fristy Tania in May 2023
