The patenting of genes is one of the most controversial matters and so first we consider the positive points of patenting,

as it has social implications of a global nature, between the private and public sector, and between many different countries. So ethically it seems that patenting should continue for global ethical goals of beneficence are served beyond those of economic development itself. In a way patenting actually forces an invention to become public knowledge, so that other researchers can begin to investigate knowledge from the new invention. This argument is based on the basic ethical reason i.e. the principle of justice which states that we should all contribute to shared knowledge that we can benefit from. People from every country will be able to benefit from the information, though to different degrees. There is also the connection between basic research and the standard of university teaching, and as education is a necessity we can claim that to perform research has a positive effect on the teaching standards. And one point that is often neglected by opponents of patenting is that, if patenting is not permitted, useful information will become trade secrets. If the inventions become trade secrets raises a new issue i.e. commercialization of patents and its benefits to the society. One of the examples of patenting being unprofitable to the society is that patenting is said to produce excessive burdens on medicine. These include increased costs to consumers, and payment of royalties for succeeding generations. The claim that the function of patents is to regulate inventiveness, rather than to regulate commercial uses of inventions is that it avoids addressing the consequences of the system. A general criticism of modern biotechnology is that it may encourage technology to be done for its own sake, and for the creation of new markets and employment, rather than seeking the best solution to a problem in terms of the environment or human society. Medical and agricultural products are clearly needed, but not always the most efficient and sustainable processes and products are used, as seen for example in the chemical pesticide industry or expensive pharmaceutical alternatives to existing medicines. The end is a product or genome sequence, which is open to all. However, by pursing certain means of achieving this end we may not obtain the same specific end. If we allow more privately funded research there may be more restrictions on the end information, in order to encourage private funding. So we can change this by encouraging the government laboratories to spend their resources on particular focused projects like the genome project at the expense of other projects, but with the cumulative results being openly available to all. Second option could be patent exclusion; the direct result would be the same, i.e. full knowledge and open use. Thus, the patenting if continued should always be focus on benefiting in terms of general medical or agricultural development, rather than economic prosperity of one company or country over another.