Greenpeace Versus Science/Industrial Complex
Here's some interesting news: Greenpeace has come out forcefully against the growing Science/Industrial Complex in Germany (which, by the way, has a more "conservative" ESCR policy than the USA). It sued to prevent a German scientist from patenting a process for turning an embryonic stem cell into a nerve cell. The court ruled that anything made from human tissue cannot be patented.
The idea that big corporations should be able to "own" genes and patent human tissues is absurd--and in my view dangerous. But there are two schools of thought. Both are ably presented in this article.
The position against patents: "Greenpeace said that such patents aren't intended to help research, but only to help make research profitable. 'We believe there should be a clear separation between research and patenting products. And the court decision affirmed this.'...'When medical treatments can be patented, there is a chance that treatments will be delayed or will cost more,' said Otmar Kloiber, Chairman of the World Medical Association. He cited a case a few years ago when a breast cancer-suppressing gene was patented. 'As soon as the patent went through, the price for the treatment skyrocketed so that some insurance companies in the US were no longer able to cover the cost of treatment.'
The position in favor of patents: "Daniel Besser, a stem cell researcher at the Max Delbruck Center in Berlin, takes a different approach. 'It also costs a lot to develop this technology,' said Besser. 'Which branch of the industry can be expected to invest billions in their research and then make the information available for everyone to use for free?'"
This whole issue kicks in my Naderite reflexes. I am very uncomfortable with any corporation or private person "owning" a human body part. The process by which, say a gene can be isolated, yes. The gene itself, no.
This also points the way toward stopping human cloning. If they can't get patents, they won't try to clone human organisms. In this regard, I see another opportunity for a left/right strange bedfellow political coalition that might just be effective in preventing the worst abuses of the coming biotech century.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:57 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
"The idea that big corporations should be able to "own" genes and patent human tissues is absurd--and in my view dangerous."
I'm sorry, but that statement hurts my ears and I hate to have this conversation again.
But for patents, you do not own genes or human tissue. You own patents for isolations and uses of genes and human tissue.
Consider a monkey kidney. You can own the kidney and the monkey, but you cannot have a patent for it by itself.
But you can have a patent for taking the kidney out and putting it in a human, but your patent would be for "removing a monkey's kidney and putting it in a human patient."
Now, does it make sense or good public health policy to have patents on health and medical procedures? That's the debate.
But please, you cannot own a patent for tissue or a gene.
Thanks for the correction. Then what did the German court refuse to patent?
And, I'm also confused about what is Greenpeace's position on genetic engineering and research?
The story doesn't say. But European Greens tend to be on the anti side.
Greenpeace leans in the direction of anti-cloning and genegineering, from all that I've heard. GP comes off as paranoid sometimes, but oddly enough I agree with most of their gripes, just not as violently as them.
Given enough Prozac, they're not a bad bunch. I don't exactly like them, but I can put up with them.
"The court ruled that anything made from human tissue cannot be patented."
Patent language is gobldygook to layman's ears and biotech patents even worse.
But it looks like they're refusing to allow patents regarding:
1. processes involving human tissue and genes
2. compositions derived from human tissue and genes
In America, the USSC in Charkrataby allowed the patenting of genetically modified organisms. That case was about microbes, but this German case looks like the human equivalent.
Just keep this in mind from patent law 101 - thou shalt not patent natural processes.
If it's natural, no patent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home