Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Proposition: Wade Wicks (Binghamton University) vs. Opposition: Anthony Kang (NEI Education)

Judge: Amanda Jaret (Binghamton University)

Resolution: Choice of Three

  • Wade Wicks
    Wade Wicks
    vs.



    Anthony Kang
    Anthony Kang
    Click to begin

    Speech Details

    Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.

    Posted at November 19, 2013 07:23:39AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 20, 2013 02:23:07AM EST by Anthony Kang

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html?_r=0
    http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2174

    Posted at November 21, 2013 10:43:46AM EST by Joe Leeson-Schatz

    Citations

    Show

    None available for this speech.

    Posted at November 22, 2013 02:38:04AM EST by Anthony Kang

    Citations

    Show

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html?_r=0
    http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=304
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.1/lewis.html

    Posted at November 23, 2013 01:50:33AM EST by Wade Wicks

    Citations

    Show

    Citations/Cards

    Point A. Creates a race to Patent Technology, crushes what could have been achieved


    Patenting is a Broken system (Patent hoarding)
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/29/the-patent-system-really-is-broken-if-someone-is-trolling-apple-for-this/

    Don't think it will happen with Genes? It already did, with BCRA1 & BCRA2 which should never have been legally patented in the first place

    "Myriad did not create anything," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. "To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."" and yet Patent granted through appeals court"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-may-not-be-patented.html?_r=0

    Implications for the field
    "According to some reports, a majority of directors of genetics labs have stated they have given up research in some areas due to concerns about gene-related patents. Similarly, in one survey, almost half of the members of the American Society of Human Genetics have indicated that some research had to be limited due to gene-related patents. "
    http://newsok.com/the-arguments-given-for-and-against-patenting-human-genes/article/3786827


    Point B. This crushes the ability of the Public from the R&D, dooming life saving cures to the fate of private profit seeking companies

    "Studies have demonstrated that research has been delayed, limited, or even stopped due to concerns about gene patents."
    First Study referenced above
    Mildred K. Cho, et al., "Effects of Patents and Licenses on the Provision of Clinical Genetic Testing Services," Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 5(1):3-8 (February 2003).
    Second study referenced above

    Jon F. Merz, et al., "Diagnositc Testing Fails the Test: The Pitfalls of Patents Are Illustrated by the Case of Haemochromatosis," Nature 415(6872):577-579 (February 7, 2002)
    https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs#14 - American Civil Liberties Union

    Point C. Threatens economy as more fields become accessible to new industry
    Information such as

    " the studies published this week suggest that granting exclusive rights over genes may be doing more harm than good. At the request of the American government, a team of researchers from Duke University, led by Robert Cook-Deegan, spent two years examining the country's markets for genetic tests for diseases ranging from colon cancer to cystic fibrosis.
    http://www.economist.com/node/15905837


    Point. D. Basic Profit Motive & Supply and Demand. The Conflict of interest for a company which operates for profit to be able to patent genes as intellectual property

    "People who support gene patents often argue that genetic investigation is like drug development and will not take place without the incentive of the patent system. But studies sponsored by the federal government have established that gene patents, unlike other patents, are not required to incentivize research."
    Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, "Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests," March 2009.


    Point E. Rate of Scientific Growth & Technological growth can easily prove that other companies would be more equipped to handle this material which could otherwise be patent guarded

    "When the first cell phone was invented in 1973, the inventor, Martin Cooper of Motorola, was able to patent his particular device. He was required to publish information about the device so that other inventors could learn from it and invent their own alternative devices. Hence the plethora of cell phone companies and options we have today.

    Continued.
    genes are different from cell phones and other things that are patented because they are not inventions, and other researchers cannot invent alternative genes. Even if patent-holders publish information about the genes they have identified, there is nothing to invent around -- the genetic material contained in the gene is the information. Because this information is the foundation for future diagnostic tests and potential treatments, tying it up as intellectual property can inhibit, rather than stimulate, advances in biomedical research."
    https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs#14


    Point F. Moral Question
    Overview of modern Patent Predicament
    http://io9.com/5971456/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-murky-practice-of-human-gene-patenting

    Status

    This match has been completed. Show the Decision.

    Submitted at November 23, 2013 06:25:39PM EST by Amanda Jaret

    Category Wade Wicks Anthony Kang
    Use of evidence: 4 5.1
    Delivery skill: 4.3 5.3
    Coherence of arguments: 4.6 4.7
    Responsiveness to opponent: 4 4.2
    Identification of key points: 4.8 4.9
    Comments: Up until your final speech, I thought you were going to win this debate because Anthony never answered your moral framework argument. That was the most persuasive argument to me in the round, and I wish you had gone all in on it during your last speech. Also, I wish you hadn't kept saying "Acknowledge that" in your closing. Excellent delivery and persuasive reasoning. Good use of evidence. Thanks very much!

    The decision is for the Opposition: Anthony Kang

    Reason for Decision:

    See the video! Thanks very much for a good debate.

    Video from the judge:


    Add Comment

    Please Create an Account or Log-In to post comments.

    Connect with Binghamton:
    Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

    Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

    PHP MySQL SUIT