Concorde Career College Primary Structure of Nucleic Acids Discussion Objectives Discuss how the primary structure of nucleic acids is the order of bases

Concorde Career College Primary Structure of Nucleic Acids Discussion Objectives

Discuss how the primary structure of nucleic acids is the order of bases in the polynucleotide sequence, and the secondary structure is the three-dimensional conformation of the backbone.
Discuss the monomers of nucleic acids are nucleotides.
Discuss how the bases are bonded to the sugars, forming nucleosides.
Summarize how nucleosides are linked by ester bonds to phosphoric acid to form the phosphodiester backbone.
Specific proteins called single-strand binding proteins bind to the single-stranded regions and protect them from nucleases.
Spontaneous mutation of bases and insertion of the wrong nucleotide would normally lead to an error every 104 to 105

Instructions:

Step 1: Read the article found in section 9A: Biochemical Connections: Law in your digital book.

Using the Concorde’s Online Library, your digital material, and other scholarly websites, discuss the following:

What are your feelings regarding the article?
Describe, in detail, what the following statement means, “What can be patented is purified DNA containing the sequence of the gene and techniques that allow the study of the genes.”
How do you see the patenting of genes/DNA impacting science and medicine over the next 30 years?
Do you believe this trend is ethical? Why/why not?

Step 2: Compile your thoughts & research and write a 3-5 page paper addressing the topics and questions above.

Step 3: Once complete, save your file and submit.

You are required to have at least two outside resources, at the scholarly level. Wikipedia is not acceptable. You are encouraged to use Concorde’s Online Library: Gale Resources (Links to an external site.)

Assignment Submission:

The use of outside resources is required and all papers must be cited and written in APA format. 9ABiochemical
Connections: Law
Who Owns Your Genes?
“There is a gene in your body’s cells that plays
a key role in early spinal cord development. It
belongs to Harvard University. Incyte
Corporation, based in Wilmington, Del., has
patented the gene for a receptor for histamine,
the compound released by cells during the hay
fever season. About half of all the genes known
to be involved in cancer are patented.”
Following the explosion in information that
came from the Human Genome Project
(see Biochemical Connections 9B), commercial
firms, universities, and even government
agencies began to look for patents on genes,
which began a long philosophical and legal
battle that continues to this day. Human cells
have about genes, which are the blueprint for
the trillion cells in our body. About percent of
the human genome has been patented. As of
2006, Incyte Corporation owned
about percent of all known human genes.
So the question that comes to mind is, “how
can a company patent a biological entity?”
Well, clearly they cannot actually patent you or
your genes, at least not the ones you carry
around. What can be patented is purified DNA
containing the sequence of the gene and
techniques that allow the study of the genes.
The idea of patenting information began with a
landmark case in 1972 when Ananda M.
Chakrabarty, a General Electric engineer, filed
for a patent on a strain
of Pseudomonas bacteria that could break
down oil slicks more efficiently. He
experimented with the bacteria, getting them
to take up DNA from plasmids that conferred
the clean-up ability. The patent office rejected
Figure 9.7
the patent on the grounds that products of
nature and live organisms cannot be patented.
However, the battle was not over, and in 1980
the Supreme Court heard the appeal in the
same year that the techniques of molecular
biology and recombinant DNA technology
really began to take off. Chief Justice Warren
Burger declared arguments against patenting
life irrelevant by stating, “anything under the
sun that is made by man” could be patented.
The ruling was close, only in favor of
Chakrabarty, and the ramifications continue to
this day. Patents have been issued for gene
sequences, whole organisms such as specific
bacteria, and cell types like stem cells. A patent
on a clone gene or the protein it produces gives
the owner exclusivity in marketing the protein,
such as insulin or erythropoietin. As of 2005,
the largest holder of scientific patents was the
University of California, with more
than patents. The U.S. government was second
with , and the first commercial enterprise on
the list, Sanofi Aventis, came in third at (Figure
9.7).
This map of the chromosomes offers an indication of how often genes
have been patented in the United States. Each colored bar represents
the number of patents in a given segment of a chromosome, which can
contain several genes. Patents can claim multiple genes, and one gene
may receive multiple patents. As a result, the number of patents
indicated for each chromosome does not necessarily match the sum of
the values represented by the colored bars.
(Laurie Grace)
There are many issues stirring the controversy.
Proponents for the patent system point out
that it takes money to drive
research. Companies will not want to invest
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in
research if they cannot get a tangible gain.
Allowing them to patent a product means they
can eventually recover their investment.
Opponents believe a patent on what amounts
to information stifles more research and even
prevents the advancement of medicine. If a
company holds the patent to a gene known to
be involved in a disease, then others cannot
study it effectively and perhaps come up with
better or cheaper treatments. The latter point
of view has come under intense scrutiny
recently because patents on diagnostic genes
inhibit both research and clinical medicine. At
the heart of the conflict are patents for two
genes related to breast cancer, BRCA
1 and BRCA 2, both owned by Myriad Genetics,
Inc., of Salt Lake City. In 2009 a group of
patients, doctors, and research professionals
brought a suit to invalidate those patents. They
argued that the two genes are “products of
nature” and should never have been patented
in the first place. The long-term effects of such
a suit are important enough that the American
Civil Liberties Union has joined the plaintiffs.
Opponents of gene patents claimed a big
victory in March 2010 when Federal Court
Judge Robert Sweet ruled against Myriad in the
suit of BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, stating the human
genes cannot be patented. So who owns your
genes? At the moment, you do. See the Hot
Topic on breast cancer at the end of this
chapter for more about BRCA 1 and 2.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment