4A: Part 1 by Courtney Kehler https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p Opinion on Patented DNA en-us 2016-11-29 15:52:20 UTC 2017-01-05 18:19:48 UTC hello@padlet.com Your Name clkehler https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/140556796 Your opinion on patented DNA]]> 2016-11-29 16:24:51 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/140556796 Esmeralda Yanez https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/142885787 I think patented DNA is something that we shouldn't mess with if something has a virus maybe that virus was there for a reason. I think we should just leave it alone or find something else that doesn't intervene with the patented.

]]> 2016-12-09 18:55:38 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/142885787 Gilbert pesina https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143429435 Gilbert Pesina 
Lettuce GMO 

Companies are given patents by the government which can be viewed as a contract. A patent is when the government give you a select amount of time between one and ten years to research and come up with ideas that you have with your company. 
I feel as if a company should be allowed patents for organisms because they should have at least a select amount of time to find all things that are brought upon the organisms if they are the first to find the organism. Someone such as the owner or the CEO should be allowed to sell the organisms to the highest bidder but they need to make sure they have a contract so they do not get punked and receive no money. 
If someone changes an organism slightly they should be allowed to receive a patent because changing something slightly can change everything for an organism. They made the idea of changing the organism and could possibly change its name. 
]]> 2016-12-13 17:34:56 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143429435 marissa https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143429941 2016-12-13 17:36:12 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143429941 marissa https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143429952 WHY CANOLA   OIL BECAUSE IN TO BE  LOW USED AND HIGH LITTLE MOVE WHAT OF THE 
Consumption of the oil is common and is claimed not only to be completely safe for human and animal consumption, but also to be among the healthiest of plant-derived oils, having a 
relatively low amount of saturated fat and a high content of polyunsaturated fats.It is also used as a source of biodiesel.Canola was developed through conventional plant breeding from rapeseed, an oilseed plant already used in ancient civilization as a fuel. The word "rape" in rapeseed comes from the Latin word rapum meaning turnip. Turnip, rutabaga, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, mustard, and many other vegetables are related to the two natural canola varieties commonly grown, which are cultivars of B. napus and B. rapa. The change in name serves to distinguish it from natural rapeseed oil, which has much higher erucic acid content.  BECAUSE  DIFFERENT  THAN MUST CONTAIN LESS After the war, demand declined sharply, and farmers began to look for other uses for the plant and its products. Rapeseed oil extracts were first put on the market in 1956–1957 as food products, but these suffered from several unacceptable characteristics. NO  BECAUSE A company can not own an organism for their benefit. Everyone and everything is has a right to make use of product for their benefit. No company or organization should be allowed to make a profit off of it.  


]]> 2016-12-13 17:36:13 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143429952 Erick Valenzuela https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143435913 A company can not own an organism for their benefit. Everyone and everything has a right to make use of a product for their benefit. No company or organization should be allowed to make a profit off of it. The fact that there are people that make use of something that was given to us for our use. Now, companies take control of necessary items such as canola oil and say that they have full control of that item. Then they could do as they please, and alter the product without the say or knowledge of the populace. GMO’s can also be harmful if the chemicals used to modify their DNA carries a sequence that can be harmful to wildlife. Companies should be given regulations on how they handled modified food. This way, no one would have to be endangered.

]]> 2016-12-13 17:51:06 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143435913 Rachel Riley https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143439257 I feel like it is alright for companies to patent DNA, because it is the same thing as placing a patent on any other product. If it belongs to them then they should have the rights to it. I do not feel selling the patent DNAs to the highest bidder is safe because they could just sell it to anyone, without caring about their knowledge regarding the organism or character. 

]]> 2016-12-13 18:02:04 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143439257 Alesandra Briones https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143440454 patented DNA is good because helps grow crops faster. It provides opportunities for investments in research and development.  ]]> 2016-12-13 18:05:38 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143440454 Brandon Navarro https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143442174 Companies should be allowed to patent DNA because it's the same]]> 2016-12-13 18:11:39 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143442174 Carlos Soria https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143444883 Patent DNA is good but it can also be bad .Its good because it make plants/crops grow faster.
But it can also be bad because it can damage human body

]]> 2016-12-13 18:20:37 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143444883 Stephanie Deleon https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143453008 I personally think that a company should not own an organism because they should not be the only ones to get money off that organism. It is just wrong for them to be the only ones to benefit from it. People should have a right to use this organism as freely as possible the fact that they have GMO's it can be harmful.

]]> 2016-12-13 18:44:08 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143453008 Alejandro Munoz https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143453320 I think  that a company should not own an organism, because they should not be the only one to ge money of of that organism. They should be able to profit and make even more money from other company and people. People all over the world should be able to use it. The owner should have the right to choose what to do with it and how to earn its money from it. They should not be able to sell the organism to the highest bidder. People doing the bidd do not know what they will do with the organism, if its going to be good or bad. Besides, people are not going to waste a lot of money just to see a plant or other thing that is not a normal size.If someone changes that organism, that person should not patent the changed organism. People who do not know how it was made, they should not be able to mess with it. 

]]> 2016-12-13 18:45:20 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143453320 Alesandra Briones https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143454127 I think patented DNA is good. It provides opportunities for investment in research and development. this provides financial support for development of useful innovation.]]> 2016-12-13 18:47:56 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143454127 Jermiah layton jl812243 https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143454728 Well personally i believe that patent DNA being owned by a company is good because with ownership over a organism  nothing can be said and no one can benefit off of what the company accomplishes and it does sound reasonable to sell the organism to a or the highest bidder why well of course  who would not want money but i do not agree with this because it is greed and if the person is merely purchasing it the company/entity must know the reasoning  a price could possibly be negotiated.now if it comes down to changing the patent of the organism/DNA  we must know what will it change into and can we change it back to its former sequence which would be a normal peanut or what ever the DNA patent used. the only people able to purchase would be someone with wealth and a vast knowledge of the patent being purchased.]]> 2016-12-13 18:49:54 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143454728 https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143467117 Jose Tovar


]]> 2016-12-13 19:26:08 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143467117 Cristina Cas cc790748 https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143517941 A company cannot own an organism. Reason why is because it's pure and if a company owned it, they could be capable of producing something impure. It can be changed slightly by a man but should be done under a supervised laboratory. Or else harmful chemicals could be made by mistake. It shouldn't be sold, just for companies to make money by creating something that's impure or not natural.]]> 2016-12-14 03:36:12 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143517941 Analilia Garcia https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143767106 I think a company should be able to own an organism. They're the ones who took the time to study and discover the different aspects of it. This also goes for people who make a change in the organism. Even if it is a slight change, it is still not the exact same. I think it's okay to sell it to highest bidder as long as they know their intentions aren't for a negative purpose.]]> 2016-12-15 05:37:08 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143767106 Brandon Navarro https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143903601 A company should be able to patent DNA because it is the same as any other product. If they already own it then placing a patent is nothing bad. Although selling them to the highest bidder is not a bright idea. If the bidder does not know anything about the DNA then it can easily be forgotten.

]]> 2016-12-15 17:29:38 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143903601 Juan Rios jr800939 https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143905053 A company should not own a organism because it would not be the only one owning an organism and would not be the only one getting money there will be a lot competition between companies. There can be several other problems. There´s a lot of companies that can change an organism and that would make other companies do something different from that to make it even better.So that way only one company can have the best organism]]> 2016-12-15 17:34:10 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143905053 Trey Hart ohramsy https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143907232 Patented dna could be good because it helps agriculture and it also helps companies to grow because of the money that is being made]]> 2016-12-15 17:40:49 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143907232 Xavier perez xp920317 https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143909890 companies should be allowed to patent DNA because its name ]]> 2016-12-15 17:48:59 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143909890 Rochelly Enamorado https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143910998 Patented DNA has a good and a harmful side to it . I am for it even though it hurts the human body. we will die one day so we should just eat whatever we desire. It helps our crops grow really fast and that is great.

]]> 2016-12-15 17:52:51 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143910998 Jorge De La Rosa https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143920330 Patent DNA isn't great for our environment. Cars arn't really that great either. We tend on veiwing situations as personal rather then constitutive reasoning. Cars pollute our world but we don't care that much because we are blinded to the fact on how they get us from place to place faster. Now take a look at patented DNA. Yeah it is harmful to our body but it helps the economy by producing more and it costs less, supply and demand. No one is going to live a healthy life for ever, so why not endore the accoplishment of producing more food then not any at all. I rather see full tummys and happy kids rather then protesters and damaged crops. The patented dNA helps the comunity not onlyby producing more crops but can be used as a wepons sheild againts virus and bacteria that can harm us.]]> 2016-12-15 18:24:25 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143920330 chyna cousan https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143923722 Patened DNA shouldnt be used in my opinion because it is not throughly tested and can cause harm to organisms and people .]]> 2016-12-15 18:35:47 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143923722 Cindy Aranda https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143925553 Patent DNA is good because the holder of the patent dictates how the gene can be used, in both commercial settings such as clinical genetic testing.]]> 2016-12-15 18:42:56 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143925553 Jonathan Serrato https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143927231 Companies should have the legal authorization to own and sell a genetically modifided organism.]]> 2016-12-15 18:49:08 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143927231 Lesly Alvarez https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143929076 My opinion on patent organisms is not good because you nevertheless know what can be the outcome of the new product.]]> 2016-12-15 18:55:49 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/143929076 Sapphire Gonzales https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/144101815 "If there's something you want in life, go and grab it with two hands and don't let it go. Chances are, if you don't take it someone else will be more than happy to", anonymous. The world is ours for the taking, if we can own land and other natural resources I don't see why a company should not be allowed to own an organism.
If a company owns an organism then it is allowed to do whatever it wants with it even if that means selling it to the highest bidder. If someone changes that organism slightly, then that person should be allowed to patent that organism, because what if that slight change did something completely different to it. For example what if a company has a peanut that lasts longer then other peanuts and somebody else took that peanut and changed it and now his peanut doesn't cause allergies. He should be able to patent his new peanut.]]> 2016-12-16 17:29:17 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/144101815 https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145151069 I don't think a company can own a organism because]]> 2017-01-03 19:00:22 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145151069 Jaanai Jalomo https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145557580 2017-01-05 18:02:50 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145557580 Jaanai Jalomo https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145559918 Yeah they can because they took the time to change it and to modify it.]]> 2017-01-05 18:11:20 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145559918 Jaanai Jalomo https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145562517 2017-01-05 18:19:46 UTC https://padlet.com/clkehler/9qe5x0bq6o0p/wish/145562517