Those objecting to human DNA patenting frequently do so on the grounds that the practice violates or threatens human dignity. For example, from 1993 to 1994, more than thirty organizations representing indigenous peoples approved formal declarations objecting to the National Institutes of Health's bid to patent viral DNA taken from subjects in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Although these were not patents on human DNA, the organizations argued that the patents could harm and exploit indigenous peoples and violate (...) their cultural values. NIH eventually dropped one of its patent applications.On May 18, 1995, 180 religious leaders, led by biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, held a press conference objecting to DNA patenting in Washington, D.C. In their “Joint Appeal against Human and Animal Patenting,” these leaders decried any attempt to patent nature. Some of the more outspoken members of the Joint Appeal likened DNA patenting to slavery, while others objected to treating human beings as marketable commodities. In his recent book, The Biotech Century, Rifkin rehashed the objections to DNA patenting voiced by members of the Joint Appeal. (shrink)

This paper informally summarizes a two-day symposium held at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., September 5–6, 2002. The issue was to what extent the progress of science and societal capacity for continued technological innovation are threatened by excessive protection of intellectual property. Excessive protection creates disadvantages not only for scientists and inventors but also for educators/students and for librarians/clientele. Speakers from a variety of disciplines and institutions agreed unanimously that scientific and technological progress is, indeed, under (...) serious threat. Various opinions were expressed about the degree of threat, currently and prospectively, as well as what counter-measures are best suited to resist undue restrictions on creative uses of scientific and technical data and information. This summary is based entirely on the author’s notes from the symposium, and the commentary offered is his alone. My apologies to the speakers if this paper does not accurately reflect the primary intent of their presentations. The “Suggested Readings” offered at the end are not specific to the speakers’ statements but rather are offered as a general resource to aid further research. The definitive record of the symposium is planned to be available from the National Academies Press as a Proceedings publication in the summer of 2003. (shrink)

Patents on biotech products have a scope that goes well beyond what is covered by the most widely applied ethical justifications of intellectual property. Neither natural rights theory from Locke, nor public interest theory of IP rights justifies the wide scope of legal protection. The article takes human genes as an example, focusing on the component that is not invented but persists as unaltered gene information even in the synthetically produced complementary DNA, the cDNA. It is argued that patent on (...) cDNA holds this information captive, or illegitimately appropriates it in limiting other researchers and inventors’ opportunity to explore new functions and uses based on this non-invented information. A tighter connection between legal IP protection and the use description stated in the patent claim is suggested. By binding protection to the product’s foreseeable functions and use, instead of the product itself and all future uses of it, legitimacy of biotech product patents is restored. (shrink)

The first stage of the human embryonic stem(ES) cell research debate revolved aroundfundamental questions, such as whether theresearch should be done at all, what types ofresearch may be done, who should do theresearch, and how the research should befunded. Now that some of these questions arebeing answered, we are beginning to see thenext stage of the debate: the battle forproperty rights relating to human ES cells. The reason why property rights will be a keyissue in this debate is simple and (...) easy tounderstand: it costs a great deal of money todo this research, to develop new products, andto implement therapies; and private companies,researchers, and health professionals requirereturns on investments and reimbursements forgoods and services. This paper considersarguments for and against property rightsrelating to ES cells defends the followingpoints: (1) It should be legal to buy and sellES cells and products. (2) It should be legalto patent ES cells, products, and relatedtechnologies. (3) It should not be legal tobuy, sell, or patent human embryos. (4) Patentson ES cells, products, and related technologiesshould not be excessively broad. (5) Patents onES cells, products, and related technologiesshould be granted only when applicants statedefinite, plausible uses for their inventions. (6) There should be a research exemption in EScell patenting to allow academic scientists toconduct research in regenerative medicine. (7)It may be appropriate to take steps to preventcompanies from using patents in ES cells,products, and related technologies only toblock competitors. (8) As the field ofregenerative medicine continues to develop,societies should revisit issues relating toproperty rights on a continuing basis in orderto develop policies and develop regulations tomaximize the social, medical, economic, andscientific benefits of ES cell research andproduct development. (shrink)

Over the last two decades, the ethical implications of patents for biological materials and processes have been the subject of spirited public debate between the many individuals and groups on which the patent system impacts. Whereas copyright, trade marks, and other species of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are widely acceptable, the patent system evokes criticism from many quarters, especially in relation to the legal protection of inventions in the Life Sciences. Some of these criticisms expressed by prestigious public organisations are (...) addressed here from the patent professional standpoint. (shrink)