Page 60 - Applied Buddhism

already done by greedy parties who have turned biotechnology than patenting the genes themselves, which are discovered and not
into a multi-billion dollar business, without much care for ethical
considerations. The end result is that much of the objection to
biotechnology today is not so much on the science itself but its
commercialisation.
Today, people object to the commercial exploitation of genes
of plant and marine lives. This is based on concern that they are
the common heritage of mankind and their commercialisation
would result in domination of one group over others. The second
of the Five Precepts observed by Buddhists is, “I undertake the
training rule not to take things not given” (adinnādānā veramaṇī
sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi). Thus, the bioprospecting and biopiracy
on plant and aqua species happening today can be considered as a
violation of the precept against stealing.
In the case of human genes the argument against
commercialisation acquires extra moral force because of the value
we placed upon human bodies and our revulsion at the idea that
people should sell bits of themselves. In present day medical
practice, people still hold on to the ethical principle of not selling
one’s organs, but donating them instead. Donation of one’s bodily
parts or genes for a good cause is an act of generosity (dāna) from
the Buddhist perspective. Buddhists would find it abhorrent to
commercialise body parts for financial gain.
Companies in biotechnology are also seeking patent rights
over genes. They generally claim that gene patents are necessary
to justify their investment in research and development. If that
were the case, opponents argue, they should seek patents for the
products or services (like diagnostic tests, therapeutic proteins
and pharmacogenetical drugs) that they intent to market, rather
048 Applied Buddhism
invented. People find it hard to believe that what were once and
still are naturally occurring entities suddenly become the property
of those who claimed to discover or invent them. Take the case of
Papua New Guinea as an example where some indigenous people
were “discovered” by an anthropologist, and their genes and cells
tested without their knowledge and subsequently patented in the
USA. When the indigenous people protested, they were told
they have to pay a huge sum to get them back. This is outrageous
because it treats human beings as commodities, where cheating and
domination are involved.
The argument is that companies which own patents do not own
those genes for they only own the knowledge of them. Opponents
argue, however, that the rights granted by patents include the right
to determine how an item is to be used and to reap profit from
its use, which is as good as owning it. And unlike conventional
property rights, intellectual property rights on genes and organism
allow control over their use even after sale. This is the reason why
farmers around the world object to patents on crops.
The discovery of a gene is capable of a range of applications,
such as diagnostic tests, gene therapies and pharmaceutical products.
A patent on a gene thus allows a company to control a very wide
range of possibilities, and thereby constrain others the opportunities
to build on their work. Eventually, it results in a small number of
companies owning a large number of patents and having control
over the future of medicine, agriculture, aquaculture, food supply
and others. On the other hand, some companies argue that patents
encourage openness: if they were not permitted, they would simply
keep research results secret.
Applied Buddhism 049