The idea of patenting by itself is reasonable, the main problem is in its awkward implementation, so the author states that current GES-patent policies have their drawbacks and then she tries to prove it by giving evidence from different sources and spheres of life. Firstly, current situation in the market of biotechnology is observed. Secondly, economic and ethical theories are involved to show the inconsistency of adherents of current GES-related policies. Finally, summing up all the key moments and objections, the author gives possible ways out of existing practice.
The main concern is that today genetically engineered products are exploited with an only purpose of making big money without thinking about possible consequences, which may become apparent already tomorrow. Biotech moguls argue that their products are not harmful at all, that GES seeds, for example, are identical with the natural. Sometimes they seem to forget about the ethical aspect of the issue and do not ask whether GES should be patented without consent of the state. The main idea sounds as follows: if there are no negative effects detected today, there are no such at all. Certainly, it is simplification, and in fact, effects could be found only many years later, when new technologies appear but then it could be already too late. ...Show more