Addresses the question whether the patent for the cloning process, currently awaiting approval in the U.S. patent office, covers human cloning in its definition.
This paper discusses whether the cloning procedure can be patented. The arguments of those who claim that current patent law may include humans, and those opposing this claim, are presented. The legal issues facing the U.S. Patent and Trade Office are outlined.
An article published in the New York Times, on May 17, 2002, entitled Debate on Human Cloning Turns to Patents” presents both sides of an issue raised over whether a patent request, currently in the US patent office, covers human cloning in its definition. The article presents both sides of the issue. The author himself takes no position, but only presents the arguments presented on both sides of the issue. Neither side presents a clear, well supported, independent argument or dependent argument. They both rely on pseudoarguments to make their appeals. The two opposing positions can be summarized as follows. The pro-cloning patent side, who coincidentally are the inventors of the procedure in question, argue that they wish to hold the patent so that no one actually uses it for humans. Currently the procedure https://blablawriting.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-smartphones-essay is only being used for pigs (Pollack, 2002). . They argue the fine points of the language, in that it covers all “mammals” and humans are mammals. Their logic is that if the patent covers mammals, and humans are mammals, then the patent covers humans. This is a dependent argument, but is not clearly write an essay on quran in urdu supported. Previous patents on cloning specifically excluded cloning humans, this one did not. It specifically mentions the use of human eggs.”