Case Study - Context In the United States, if someone needs to take a DNA test, there is a possibility that it has been patented by a DNA research company. The problem is that it can increase the cost of a DNA test from around two hundred dollars to over two thousand, depending on the test being performed. Up to forty-one percent of the genes in your body are actually owned by another company and are not legally owned by you. In particular, Myriad Genetics holds the patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene, also owning at least fifteen nucleotides of BRCA1. Possessing these genes is significant because a faulty BRCA1 gene can increase your chances of developing breast or ovarian cancer, up to an 85 or 90 percent chance. Additionally, the BRCA1 gene is present in over 689 other genes that influence many other parts of the body, such as brain and heart function. These genes were patented by Myriad in the 1990s, shortly after they became patentable. When a doctor draws blood from a patient, immediately after it is drawn, 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 body, the genetic code that makes up who you are; rather a company 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 livestock industry, which leads to another problem of its own, the genetic engineering of cows and other animals. Those who would be in favor of DNA patents would be research and pharmaceutical companies. The main reason why gene patents would be supported would be the fact that they let these companies make money and, in exchange, they put their reports... in the middle of paper... they cannot be justified, and the true intentions are brought to the light. When arriving at the conclusion that Kant would have wanted, 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 was on the side of someone who may have cancer and needs to get tested, then how would they feel about it? They would also have to pay out of pocket, since insurance does not cover this analysis. When situations are viewed from the other party's point of view, 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