Case Study - Background In the United States, if someone is to take a DNA test, it is possible that it has been patented by a DNA research company. The problem is that this can increase the cost of a DNA test from around two hundred dollars to over two thousand, depending on the test performed. Up to forty-one percent of the genes in your body actually belong to another company and are not legally yours. Myriad Genetics notably holds a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene, also possessing at least fifteen BRCA1 nucleotides. Having these genes is important because a faulty BRCA1 gene can make a person much more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, up to an eighty-five or ninety percent chance. Additionally, the BRCA1 gene appears in over 689 other genes that affect many other parts of the body such as brain and heart function. These genes were patented by Myriad in the 1990s, shortly after they could be patented. When a doctor draws blood from a patient, immediately after its collection, Myriad owns it and it must be sent to them for analysis. The problem with patenting DNA is that, technically speaking, you don't "own" a part of your own body, the genetic code that constitutes who you are; rather, it is a company that makes it and controls what is done with it and how it is tested. Biological patents are not limited to humans, they extend to the cattle industry, which brings with it another problem of its own, that of genetic engineering of cows and other animals. Those who would favor DNA patents would be research companies and pharmaceutical companies. The main reason why genetic patents would be supported would be the fact that they allow these companies to make money, and in exchange, they put their money where their mouth is... the endorsements cannot be taken into account matters, and true intentions are revealed through the light. When arriving at a conclusion that Kant would have obtained, the use of categorical imperatives can be very helpful in determining the outcome. Categorical imperatives are moral rules that must be followed by everyone, or “universal laws,” according to Kant. Using this reasoning, if Myriad Genetics were on the side of someone who may have cancer and needs to take a test, what would they think about that? They would also have to pay out of pocket, as insurance does not cover this analysis. When situations are viewed from the other party's perspective, the validity of an action can be completely eliminated. Based on this reasoning, Kant would propose making it illegal to patent any gene in the human body, or anything in the human body. Case Study – Catholic Ethics