Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Ethics Watch
  • Published:

Patentability and higher life forms

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 4, page 162 (2003)Cite this article

The Canadian decision that a mouse that had been genetically engineered to express an oncogene was not patentable was surprising for several reasons. Europe, Japan and the United States had all previously granted patents on genetically engineered mice, although they had the power to deny patents on the grounds of “ordre public and morality” — a power which Canadian law does not grant. However, the Canadian court concluded — in a 5–4 decision — that genetically engineered “higher life forms” are not patentable because they cannot be reduced to material objects, and, therefore, are not the new “manufactures” or “compositions of matter” required by Canadian patent law2. In addition, the court's distinction between “higher” and “lower” life forms might not be workable, and requires a belief in a vitalistic life-force that has long been absent from contemporary biology.

A more difficult question concerns whether patents should be granted on processes for cloning or modifying the germline of human beings, for human–animal chimaeras and for human stem-cell technologies. Although the European Union specifically prohibits such patents3, the situation in the United States remains unclear. United States anti-patenting activists have applied for a patent on methods of making human–mouse chimaeras to publicize this issue and to block the ability to make such chimaeras if the patent is granted4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Andrews, L. B. Genes and patent policy: rethinking intellectual property rights. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 803–808 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) SCC 76. File No. 28155 (2002)

  3. Council Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions O.J. (L 213) 13 (1998)

  4. Check, E. Biotech critic tries to sew up research on chimaeras. Nature 421, 4 (2003)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas School of Law,

    John A. Robertson

Authors
  1. John A. Robertson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robertson, J. Patentability and higher life forms. Nat Rev Genet 4, 162 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1036

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1036

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing