Generate text that refutes this claim: Patenting inhibits research and therapeutics  The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, as such there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience.  The Human Genome Project is one of the government funded projects that makes all its research freely and publicly available. They are not driven by profit and offer information on their discoveries for free enabling others to build upon their findings.  The problem with patents is that companies claim ownership without regard towards moral issues. It is purely in the pursuit of their profits that they decide not to allow others to build on their findings and make the process of discovering treatments far more difficult. An example of this is the Myriad company which, whilst holding patents on BRCA 1 &amp; 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. 1  Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can to the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people.  1. Spektor, Michelle, "Genes Are Still Patentable, Federal Appeals Court Rules", Science Progress, 17 August 2011,
aw society family house would allow patenting genes
Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents.  However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute.  Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/21/2011  3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”,  accessed 07/20/2011  4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011