What is a human being? In the past, it is a question in the appropriate manner contemplated by theologians, philosophers and anthropologists. But in the modern world of biotechnology, it has also become an issue to consider venture capitalists, patent lawyers and legislators.
Most members of the latter group May want to avoid this unpleasant, or at least impractical, the case as long as possible.
But, in cooperation with the social critic Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic trends in the Washington, DC, decided to force the issue of applying for a patent in late 1997 on embryos and animals containing human cells - so-called "chimeras ".
"Chimera" as being composed of two cells of genetically different individuals, usually in combination at an embryonic stage. Rare are the natural human chimeras who were born when the embryonic cells fraternal twins in the uterus combine to create an individual. Scientists have also deliberately create cross-species chimeras like "GEEP", in which embryonic cells from goats and sheep are combined. The contemporary view suggests the Greek meaning "goat" Chimera is a fire-breathing creature that goat's body, lion's head and tail of a serpent. Some sources are represented by Chimera with three heads (lion's head as a principal, and then goat's head sprouted from his back, a snake or a dragon head to tail), but a popular myth once, fire, vomiting head. Very likely aspect of Chimera gradually became the name of synonymous with the vain dream.
Leading anti-biotech activist, has long opposed corporations "owning" patents on living organisms (or cells and genes). But corporations do not actually "own" genes or animals? What are patents? Patents are temporary monopolies (20 years) approved by the Government of the inventor as a way to encourage them to disclose how their inventions work publicly, so that other people will be able to use them.
is often reviled by the scientists, the patent system is actually information about the secret process of doing something like a peer-reviewed scientific publications - which was first revealed in getting a loan. Like patents, peer-reviewed research must disclose enough information so that other researchers can reproduce eksperiment.Privremenog monopolies have created valuable patents, which encourages people to invest in research and development projects of biotech companies.
Q chimeras - Activists are trying to patent fear
Scientists say that a decision on protest patent will have no impact on future chimeric-animal patents. Looking to treat a number of neuro-degenerative diseases, stem cells, Palo Alto, Calif.-based company, has a transplanted human neural stem cells in the brain of one thousand miševa.Miševi are technically chimeras, a mixture of two or more species.
Such animals, particularly mice, have been used in searching for ways to treat human diseases, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's bolest.Sposobnost assessment of human cells in mice or other animals is critical to translate scientific discoveries into therapeutic medicine, so the bridge to the clinic . However, the use of such chimeric animals is the focus of a complicated patent case that is raising legal and ethical issues. In this case, opponents of patenting of living beings, applied for a patent himera.US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to issue a patent for a human-animal chimeras in the application on the grounds that it would be almost too human.
The volatile debate bioengineered life forms, many disagree about the consequences of the biotechnology industry's recent slučaju.Kritičari who registered patent case say serious business and research implications. However, some leading researchers and industry observers say it is just another attempt to grab attention in a field packed with more heat than rational discussion. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at the Medical School in New York, Valhalla, says he opposes the patenting of living beings. Newman, working with the Washington, DC, activist Jeremy Rifkin, filed a patent application in 1997 for a theoretical creature never actually made. For "tactical reasons," says Newman was eventually divided his patent application into two: one involves primates and other directed at other animals
.using what he calls the "embryo Chimera technique," Newman attempted to patent a creature combining human embryo cells with cells from an embryo from a monkey, ape or other animal to create a blend of both. Other scientists have used similar methods to create "GEEP" (part goat, part sheep) could be used for drug testing as a source of organs for transplantation in humans. After seven years and several rejections and appeals, the USPTO rejected both Newman's patent application in August 2004, saying, among other things, that this creature would be too close to humans. Newman and Rifkin let six months of the appeal period fire declared victory in February 2005. Both Rifkin and Newman said they expect a decision to prevent scientists and Biotechs from obtaining similar patents for 20 years, the time the patent is usually feasible. Rifkin says crossing species boundaries is a form of animal abuse and violation of nature and human dignity.
"The ruling has significant implications for the future of the biotech industry," says Rifkin, president of the nonprofit Foundation on Economic Trends, one of the most vocal critics of biotechnology products such as genetically modified organisms.
implications for the commercial interests are far-reaching. That means anyone applying for a patent for a human-animal chimeras should be denied. He expects the decision will be influenced stem cell, too. There are people who produce or express their intention to produce a mixture of humans and mice for research in order to test the potential of human stem cells. This decision does not block their ability to do that in their labs, but if they wanted to patent and market, and mixed human and animal organisms, it will be harder for them to commercialize it. However, a leading stem cell scientists say the case is likely to stop working on chimeric animals.
Twenty-five years, Diamond V. Chakrabarty, a U.S. scientist Ananda Chakrabarty, who worked for General Electric at that time, obtained the first patent on a living organism, genetically modified bacteria that consumes spills nafte.Patentni office initially denied program, believing that he could not patent living organisms, according to Brigid Quinn, USPTO spokesperson. The case landed in the United States Supreme Court, which held that "anything under the sun that a man" could be patented as long as "a new, non-obvious and useful ."
Since then, more than 436 transgenic or bioengineered animals have been patented, including 362 mice, 26 rats, 19 rabbits, 17 sheep, 24 pigs, two chickens, 20 cows, three dogs, and much more. Many say that 1980 has led to the birth of biotechnology in the United States. However, U.S. law clearly prohibits the patenting of people. One of the reasons we are denied the case of the examiner believes one or more claims covered by the Human bića.Pitanje that can be raised whether the case will affect future patents for the chimeric animals', the answer may be that the examiners always decide first if it is patentable subject, and people no. All found in nature are not patentable subject matter. It must be new, useful, non-obvious, and fully disclosed in writing. Each patent application reviewed its own merits.
Therefore, one can not say whether the case will affect future chimera patent application or not.
Irving L. Weissman, professor of cancer biology, pathology and developmental biology at Stanford University has created mice with brains that contain about 1% of human tissue. Weissman says the latest news reports that it plans to create a mouse with 100% of the human brain are "inaccurate." Pioneer in the field of stem cell research, Weissman is credited as the first scientist to identify and isolate hematopoietic stem cells from mice and humans. He says that the news reports prompted academic inquiry is made to find out, in theory, as he is a university ethics panel thought of the idea. He says he has no current plans to create such a mouse.
Newman / Rifkin patent is "a new attempt to block the science," while "the use of human mouse chimeras is old," says Weissman. In 1988, J. Michael McCune patented the SCID-hu mouse, "severe combined immunodeficient mouse with human organs, bones, lymphatic tissue, thymus, and liver," says Weissman, who is also director of the Stanford Institute of Cancer / Stem cell biology and medicine and co-founder of Stem-cells and other companies. "A precedent exists, the findings were published a long time and people's lives are affected by these discoveries. Would you go back all those discoveries and be happy if the therapy was discovered by them are taken away?" Weissman dismisses the Newman / Rifkin case as a "typical Rifkin," adding that "one example does not have. This does not invalidate the others, so it's a hollow victory. The case is not precedent think ."
chimeric animals, and patents, are key to the ability of biotechnology to develop cures for human diseases. To protect their investment, for example, StemCells has more than 43 U.S. patents in the technology of stem cells, but no one is on bioengineered mice. If the private sector can not get a patent on their work and invention, it is unlikely to be involved in the work, because it takes so much time and effort and novca.Sposobnost to keep their return on investment is crucial. We concluded that mice backbone Biotechs, pharmaceuticals and drug development.
, however, adding a complex of genes on other things, for example mice, to increase the number of ethical problems. Why? Since mice simply could not develop a humanoid brain with self-consciousness. I like mice may be useful in finding treatments for human diseases of the brain important thing is that certain types of brain, not the genes have had. Human genes are not holy men.
yuckiest thing of all would be if public policy and are afraid of the Frankenstein fantasies peddled the clever activists into slowing biomedical advances that could improve the suffering of millions.
Rethinking scientific and legal precedent
since 1980, the Supreme Court that is legal in the United States to obtain patents on living organisms or their offspring.
In addition, the Government has drawn a line that would prevent pre-term human embryo, if it is appropriate to change from being patented. Neither is it stated how many human genes or cells of animals should contain before it could not be patented under the constitutional protection for members of the human community.
of human embryos can be patented? Working scientists worried that the fruits of science should not be used to harm society, Rifkin is a call several years ago to invent something novel, eagerly accepted, but also disturbing to warn the public about the inevitable consequences of unbridled commercialization living svijeta.Rezultat was human-animal chimeras , which could contain anything from tiny compared to most human cells.
This creature can not be made (and thus is not), but I just had to show its effectiveness. Since it is known that the invention was patentable under existing standards and laws, it is accepted that the patent will be issued and then the possibility of exercising the right to prevent its implementation in the legal 20 years.
It is envisaged that public outrage at the possibility that such part-human, part-animal organisms can be produced and patented can reasonably lead to a re-evaluation of the legalities that are made bona fide commercial ventures of this kind possible.
of the new development specifically dealing with precedent Chakrabarty case, in which the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) as opposed to granting the patent Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty and his employer, General Electric Corp., zaulje-eating bacteria.
The courts overturned that decision, absurdly, that bacteria are "more akin to inanimate chemical compositions ... [than] to horses and honeybees and raspberries and roses", a startling that Chakrabarty's microbe was a "man-made invention." Notwithstanding these differences, Chakrabarty decision served as a precedent for the issuance of patents on mice, pigs and cows, some containing introduced human genes, as well as the native human bone marrow.
Future Challenges
the legislature has not specifically addressed the question of whether humain beings can be patented or not. Similarly, the Chakrabarty Court did not address whether human beings are patentable subject matter. "PTO (Patenr and Trademark Office), commented that" when the patent issues are the greatest first impression, in the absence of clear legislative intent and guidance from the courts, it is incumbent on the Office to continue with caution. "
New circumstances are given the opportunity to finally open the question of whether or not the current PTO policy holders of life of patents on genes, cells, etc. is legal. With the PTO now say that the ranting of certain patents on human cells may in fact be questioned, the question of the legitimacy of the patent life becomes a matter of great interest to public policy within the government itself.
the question is whether the human gene pool, and life itself can be patented is one of the major problems of the coming century. If the current PTO policy must stand, several life science companies in the world will gain control over the genetic blueprints of millions of years of biological evolution, giving them tremendous power over the market of biological 21st the century. These legal challenges are designed to block and reverse the potential monopoly of the biology of the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment