Schmitt is an amateur gardener. He one day comes across a strange new blossom in his garden. He takes it next door to his neighbor, a botanist, to analyze. The botanist returns with the news that his flower is a one-in-a- billion mutation, with properties such that if its nectar were analyzed and synthesized, we would have the cure for heart disease.

When word gets out, pharmaceutical company representatives line Schmitt's driveway, offering him exorbitant sums to buy his blossom in order to produce such a cure. But Schmitt is so taken by the beauty of his flower he cannot bring himself to part with it. It's my plant, he reminds everyone, produced on my land with my efforts. I should get to keep it if I want.

Is Schmitt correct here? Or should society have the right to take the blossom from Schmitt and so cure heart disease?

Feel free to express your opinion on the question posed. As long as you take a stand on the issue -- and give me four or five credible sentences explaining why you take the stand you do -- you'll receive credit.