The Chronicle

Issue date: 11/12/07 Section: News
Last update: 11/12/07 at 6:33 AM EST

Media Credit: Kevin Hwang Steven Wise, former president of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, speaks at the Animals and Bioengineering Conference Saturday afternoon.

Apples and oranges may soon be patented-unless lawmakers and researchers learn more about the ethics of plant and animal use.

That was one message from the Animals and Bioengineering Conference, held Friday and Saturday at the School of Law. The conference brought together attorneys, judges, scientists and ethicists to discuss the use of genetically modified organisms in commercial and research settings.

Judge Michel Bastarache, puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, criticized the court for the decisions of the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case, which he said implies that a higher lifeform is patentable.

In 2004, the court ruled in favor of Monsanto when the company sued Percy Schmeiser, a farmer who used its genetically modified seeds-spread to his fields from neighboring farms-to produce plants.

"The [Canadian] Patent Office has always held that higher-life forms are not patentable, for over 100 years," Bastarache said. "The ruling introduces indirectly a new obsession rule... [that] the infusion of every seed or speck of pollen in the crop of someone else, renders Monsanto a co-owner of every plant."

He added that the case conflicts with the decision of the 2002 denial of the patenting of the Harvard OncoMouse, which contains a modified genome that makes it susceptible to cancer. "According to [the] Harvard College [case], it is the gene and cell that is patentable, not the plant," he said. "It demonstrates the majority's incomplete understanding of technology."

He noted that the patents are used for commercial exploitation, rather than to better the world through inventions.

"The majority in this case held that the purpose of the statutory monopoly, granted by the patent act, is to protect the patentee's business interest," Bastarache said. "The 'use' of the plant, which contains a patented element, constitutes an infringement in every case where the invention is significant to the commercial interests of the defendant."

Others at the conference spoke about the ethics of animal use and exploitations for scientific discoveries.

"There has been a very major failure for ethicists to engage both the public and scientists," said Margaret Riley, professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law. "It doesn't get in the newspaper and no one does anything with it."

Bernard Rollin, University distinguished professor at Colorado State University, said genetic engineering is not intrinsically wrong.

"'Playing God,' that's what you hear a lot," Rollin said. "If playing God by manipulating life is wrong, so too is damming rivers, eradicating small pox, building cities, wearing clothes, maybe."

He added that scientists must explain to the public the moral and ethical issues involved in genetic engineering. "The first week that Dolly was announced, three out of four Americans, 75 percent, said it violates God's will," Rollin said. "And then how do you reply to that? Do you e-mail God? His inbox is full."

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools