Letter: Oncomouse: power of a patent, Christian perspective, the 'green rat'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Adrian Brasnett does not think the patent system is the correct forum to address questions arising from the genetic manipulation of animals (Letters, 20 January). This is a common line of reasoning from patent lawyers who prefer not to have their lives complicated by difficult moral issues, including those of animal welfare.
Unfortunately when we try to apply concepts of intellectual property - developed in the 19th century for dealing with inventions of an inanimate nature - to a new technology capable of redesigning genetic structures, it becomes impossible to avoid these questions. The European Patent Office itself discovered this when it came to adjudicate on the 'Oncomouse'.
Although the need to regulate biotechnology raises wider questions than those directly concerning patenting, those ethical issues that arise from patent applications themselves, such as encouraging increased use of and suffering to animals in research programmes, should surely be addressed by the patent system itself.
The grant of a patent for the genetic engineering of a living being gives powers of ownership fundamentally different from those applying to domestic, laboratory or farm animals. The patent gives monopoly control over the DNA 'blueprint', which can be altered far beyond conventional bounds to create unnatural characteristics such as predisposition to cancer or grossly exaggerated growth patterns in whole generations of such animals. It must surely be right that any extension of the patent law to allow such powers should also set the limits on what is and is not morally acceptable.
Patents are a wholly inappropriate system for dealing with the commercialisation of biotechnical matter. We would like to see a moratorium on the grant of such patents until other forms of industrial property protection are explored and until there has been a wider public debate on the implications of claims to have 'invented' life.
Yours sincerely,
STEVE EMMOTT
The Genetics Forum
London, EC2
21 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments