Question.3702 - Written Assignment Unit 5 Upadhi IzeagiUoPeople University BUS 3305-01 Business Law and Ethics October 9th, 2024 Written Assignment Unit 5 Considering the case Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that a genetically engineered bacterium could be patented, which serves as a landmark decision providing open scope for the industry to file patents of genetically modifies organisms, although it revolves around several ethical values and debated from varied aspects, it is a rule in play (Eisenberg, 2006). From the perspective of favouring patenting GMOs innovation incentive, wherein patents tend to provide the scope to obtain powerful incentives for the companies to invest in R&D related to GMOs, either by granting exclusive rights to inventors - encouraging a culture of innovation or supporting the creation of new products and technologies, which becomes boundless (Eisenberg, 2006). Secondly, the flow of economic support, either by job creation, or increased trade trends or having higher returns on investments; thirdly, having a check on the quality standards, wherein the patent process ensures that GMOs meet specific safety and quality standards, which in turn aids in protecting public health and environment - in the longer run it provides the scope for government to establish global food security standards like tackling the challenges by increasing crop yields, improving nutritional content, and enhancing resistance to pests and diseases. On the other hand, arguing the against patenting GMOs ethical concerns like varied questions it could draw, since it commodifies living organisms and raises concerns about corporate control over the food supply; Secondly, it poses environmental risks like harming beneficial insects or becoming invasive species, wherein it is driven by progress and development alone - which has the potential to compromise other environmental factors and there is no research conducted by the team to keep the damages or negative impact at bay or at check (Eisenberg, 2006). Similarly, posing a threat to public health risk, although there are few scientific evidence to back the claim that GMOs are harmful to human health, some individuals remain concerned about potential long-term risks and patenting GMOs can limit the accessibility to certain technologies for developing or poor countries, potentially exacerbating global hunger and poverty. For instance, GMOs have contributed to significant socioeconomic benefits, not that it doesn't overshadow the negative impact, it leaves behind but the postive outcome tend to benefit the larger crowd, within the context of utilitarianism, as it has aided increased crop yields, reduced pesticide use, and higher farm incomes. A study by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) found that GMOs have resulted increasing global agricultural productivity of 18% since 1996 and also the research uncovered that genetically engineered produce has led to a reduction in pesticide use by 11.1 billion pounds since 1996 more like a solution global warming hampering the climate and environmental change; also GMOs tend to support a sense of positive; such as use of pesticides and herbicides, and improving soil health (James, 2012). In conclusion, I believe the patentability of GMOs tends to remain within a complex web of discussion, implying that this is a policy issue that requires careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits. References Eisenberg, R. S. (2006). The story of Diamond v. Chakrabarty: technological change and the subject matter boundaries of the patent system. James, C. (2012).?Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012?(Vol. 44). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.

Answer Below: