What are the dangers of allowing corporations to have patents on "life", DNA, and genes?

If anyone develops a drug, procedure, treatment or anything having to do with that specific gene, whoever owns the patent to it will make money from it. I guess companies are thinking ahead if they are doing research on the gene, they don't want someone else beating them to their intended outcome.

American psychological belongings (IP) regulation prohibits claiming issues that needless to say happen in nature, which includes salmon, chemical compounds, or vegetation. What the firms do is patent the technique. in relation to genetically-engineered salmon, the corporate has a patent on the potential with the help of which they alter the salmon's genes. in relation to our John Q Public, who had his antibodies cloned, the organisation maximum in all probability patented the technique with the help of which they altered the factors of his immune gadget, or with the help of which they presented his antibodies into yet another residing gadget, and have been waiting to mass-produce it with the intention to reinject into John Q. Public. I agree that IP is amazingly a dicey subject in the area of genetics, bioengineering, and ethics. however the organisation won't be able to legally very own something that needless to say occurs in nature. subsequently, John Q. Public, ought to he decide for to workout his rights, is surely interior his rights to sue the organisation and assemble royalty and licensing funds, if in actuality what the organisation patented grew to become right into a needless to say-occuring element to his immune gadget. John Q. would, probably, on no account would desire to artwork yet another day in his existence.

take a look at microsoft......theres your answer

CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!