Page 61 - 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 invented. People find it hard to believe that what were once and
considerations. The end result is that much of the objection to still are naturally occurring entities suddenly become the property
biotechnology today is not so much on the science itself but its of those who claimed to discover or invent them. Take the case of
commercialisation. Papua New Guinea as an example where some indigenous people
were “discovered” by an anthropologist, and their genes and cells
Today, people object to the commercial exploitation of genes tested without their knowledge and subsequently patented in the
of plant and marine lives. This is based on concern that they are USA. When the indigenous people protested, they were told
the common heritage of mankind and their commercialisation they have to pay a huge sum to get them back. This is outrageous
would result in domination of one group over others. The second because it treats human beings as commodities, where cheating and
of the Five Precepts observed by Buddhists is, “I undertake the domination are involved.
training rule not to take things not given” (adinnādānā veramaṇī
sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi). Thus, the bioprospecting and biopiracy The argument is that companies which own patents do not own
on plant and aqua species happening today can be considered as a those genes for they only own the knowledge of them. Opponents
violation of the precept against stealing. 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
In the case of human genes the argument against its use, which is as good as owning it. And unlike conventional
commercialisation acquires extra moral force because of the value property rights, intellectual property rights on genes and organism
we placed upon human bodies and our revulsion at the idea that allow control over their use even after sale. This is the reason why
people should sell bits of themselves. In present day medical farmers around the world object to patents on crops.
practice, people still hold on to the ethical principle of not selling
one’s organs, but donating them instead. Donation of one’s bodily The discovery of a gene is capable of a range of applications,
parts or genes for a good cause is an act of generosity (dāna) from such as diagnostic tests, gene therapies and pharmaceutical products.
the Buddhist perspective. Buddhists would find it abhorrent to A patent on a gene thus allows a company to control a very wide
commercialise body parts for financial gain. range of possibilities, and thereby constrain others the opportunities
to build on their work. Eventually, it results in a small number of
Companies in biotechnology are also seeking patent rights companies owning a large number of patents and having control
over genes. They generally claim that gene patents are necessary over the future of medicine, agriculture, aquaculture, food supply
to justify their investment in research and development. If that and others. On the other hand, some companies argue that patents
were the case, opponents argue, they should seek patents for the encourage openness: if they were not permitted, they would simply
products or services (like diagnostic tests, therapeutic proteins keep research results secret.
and pharmacogenetical drugs) that they intent to market, rather

048 Applied Buddhism Applied Buddhism 049