StemCellPatents Violate Human Dignity

Research Triangle Park, NC -

We at stemcellpatents.com usually stick to scientific and sometimes patent law issues when we write this news section. However, a recent publication (Resnik. Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity. Health Care Anal. 2007 Sep;15(3):211-222. Epub 2007 Mar 29) on stem cell ethics made us discuss a topic that we usually don't touch upon: Ethics of patenting.

The author, Resnik DB (resnikd@niehs.nih.gov in case you want to email him) makes the case that patents on embryonic stem cells violate human dignity. The arguement is made that a property right is placed upon by the granting of a patent, and therefore totipotent stem cells should not be allowed to be patented while committed stem cells should be.

From our understanding (and it may be incorrect), this arguement displays lack of understanding of the basic fundamental principles of patent law. For a patent to be issued the criteria of novelty, usefulness and non-obvious have to be met. In some jurisdictions, the concept of "patentable subject matter" is also taken into consideration.

The issue of patenting life is very interesting to think about, but at the end of the day it is a black and white question. Is there an invention? Life, whether you believe it was created by God, or has evolved, was NOT invented by a human and therefore a patent can not be placed on it. Patents are placed on discoveries related to life, or that use life to attain specific goals. For example, no one argues that patents should not be granted on genetically engineered strains of bacteria. Even moreso, patents can be granted on highly purified strains of bacteria at concentrations that are not normally found in their environment and have a useful function (i forgot the case but if one of my readers is nice enough to mention it I would appreciate it).

By patenting an embryonic stem cell, a patent is placed on an artificial creation that is not found in nature. Patents can not be issued for things that are found in nature if they are not modified or a new use found for them.

So the paper seems to us to have been making a point that displays ignorance of the patent law. This type of paper, which appeared on pubmed, is only an example of the ignorance people, even educated people, have of the patent system. It is this ignorance that we will have to be on guard for, so that lobby groups do not perform in the US what happened in Canada where patents on transgenic animals were banned.