The issue of patenting

The topic of patenting has led to numerous misunderstandings in biotechnology and food science. Food product supply does not satisfy demand due to negative changes in the climate and human activity. We have seen the patenting of technologies and inventions aiming at improving life from time to time. Several researchers, including universities and government agencies, have been granted patents. The US Congress proposed patenting to signify the authenticity of research as it was about to be commercialized. Despite the regulations, biotechnological researchers continue to have difficulties in patenting their ideas due to the following factors. The issues that biotechnological researchers faced include the exposure to openness that contravenes the policy of secrecy for some years. For biotechnology, one the product reaches the market; another team of researchers can reproduce or regenerate it. Besides, there some patent components that have medical issues. A well novel protein structure may become useless after the invasion by diseases. The question of patenting the genome also raises contentious issues since some countries still fail to comply with the Universal Declaration of the Human Genome and Human Rights of 1997 (Block, & Keller, 2015). Lastly, issues of the tolerable level of the possible harm that would be caused by the human beings and animals. Others, issues are the effects to the environment.

While applying the Kant’s principle that says that it is wrong to lie, the logical meaning conclusion seems to oppose it. In the maxim life, the subject always expects that he be being lied to and there is no way you would do it to pass the universalization test (Devine, et. al., 2014). However, the moral lie is always allowed to subvert the negative consequences into positive outcomes.

In the case of the Crazed Murderer, according to the principle of duty, lying that your friend has left does not meet the ethical’s requirements of the maxim. On the other, keeping quiet or telling the truth would imply having the complicit hand in the killing of your friend. Kant faces hard surface and the rock by doctoring the maxim in case of the murderer inquiries more about the friend. Rather, he recommends evading the trap question without conveying a truthful answer. This would be achieved by introducing other issues and not abruptly shutting off. A clever evasion would involve inquiring the primary intention, some introductions to buy time (Aune, 2014). Otherwise, without doing such as like revealing that your friend is inside your room. After he has left, I would inform the friend, as fast as possible and call the police.

References

Aune, B. (2014). Kant’s theory of morals. Princeton University Press.

Devine, T. C., Presnell, W. A., & Miller, S. (2014). Games as Art and Kant’s Moral Dilemma: What Can Ethical Theory Reveal About the Role of the Game Designer as Artist?. Games and Culture, 9(4), 277-310.

Block, F. L., & Keller, M. R. (2015). State of innovation: the US government’s role in technology development. Routledge.