Xref: utzoo talk.bizarre:11345 misc.legal:4576 talk.politics.misc:9199 misc.jobs.misc:1638 sci.bio:1110 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!xanth!kent From: kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,misc.jobs.misc,sci.bio Subject: Re: Are Animals Patentable? Message-ID: <4959@xanth.cs.odu.edu> Date: 20 Apr 88 21:42:23 GMT References: <97500013@prism> <4872@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va. Lines: 28 Summary: carry me back to old Virginny In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >>> 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? > Great thinking! We can use the precedent they used in the south, when they decided that someone 15/16ths caucasian and 1/16th black was subject to the Jim Crow legislation; you could probably make a pretty good imitation of a human with 15/16ths human genes and 1/16th mouse genes; so their noses twitch a lot and they're a little furry; just goes to show - definitely have all the rights of lab animals! Kent, the man from xanth. (And if anybody thinks I'm serious about this, we're going to have to bring back the smiley face to talk.bizarre)