Xref: utzoo talk.bizarre:11334 misc.legal:4561 talk.politics.misc:9185 misc.jobs.misc:1630 sci.bio:1103
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!im4u!ut-sally!turpin
From: turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,misc.jobs.misc,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Animals Patentable?
Message-ID: <11299@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: 19 Apr 88 14:46:22 GMT
References: <97500013@prism> <4872@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 16
Summary: What are "human" genes.

In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM>, andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
> 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?

The problem with the above question is that genes do not come
with labels "human", "mouse", etc.  We and chimpanzees share 99%
of our genes in common. Are these "human" genes or "chimp" genes?
As you note, the ability to mix and match only lessens any hope
of a genetic determination of what is human. If any legal
thinkers or other philosophers are still hoping that biologists
will be able to solve the problem of what a person is, at this
point it is a most futile hope.

Russell