Xref: utzoo talk.bizarre:11330 misc.legal:4554 talk.politics.misc:9183 misc.jobs.misc:1624 sci.bio:1102
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!frip!andrew
From: andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,misc.jobs.misc,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Animals Patentable?
Message-ID: <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Date: 18 Apr 88 17:16:34 GMT
References: <97500013@prism> <4872@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Sender: nobody@tekecs.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon
Lines: 19

>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice!
>> (genetically engineered.)
>> Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard.

> Oh boy!  The perfect precedent!  Let's clear up, say,  Down's syndrome
> in a family line with gene therapy.  We can bring back slavery.
> Legally!  The patent office says so!

The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents
for new specifies of humans because of the thirteenth amendment to the
constitution.  You know, the one prohibiting slavery.

The question now has to do with the gray area.  That mouse has a human
gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene
is patentable.  And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is
not.  Where will the line be drawn?

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)       [UUCP]
                        (andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]