In my opinion, it is a 9 (yes for sure!). I am in support of Sung’s argument that states that it is ethical to patent or copyright the genes, embryos and other parts of body. According to Sung some cases that call for patenting the genes, embryos or their parts. He argues that there is no complete right or wrong because the situation surrounding the licensing of these components depends on whether it is social, economic, or ethical priorities as legislated by the law. He, however, insinuates that there is case where it is necessary to patent the parts but for an exclusive period. He argues that patenting the rights will interfere with research.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Is it Ethical to Patent or Copyright the Genes, Embryos or their Parts?"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

Can the patents interfere with the behavior that may have authoritative moral percussions like the legislature or on the course to access like particular medical treatment? Sung answers the question by saying that the issue on the scope of exclusivity is established for 20 years for the rights to serve the purpose it was intended. In his reply to Sung, Koepsell says that the law is sometimes wrong and may lead to immoral behavior if some issues like patenting rights are not regulated. He comes up with his two theories of utilitarian and deontological he argues that on these theories claiming that licensing should be prohibited. And argues that is not ethical because it will lead to commercialization of body parts which is legally wrong.

It is important to note that it is not ethical to patent genes rights because it hinders the innovations on research and development in the medical field. Regulation can be made through the exclusivity right which serves the purpose for 20 years. Sung argues on facts while Koepsell argues on is practical that patenting genes is beneficial to several people.