Playing God or the Work of the Devil: Some Implications of Human Patenting.

• Author: Narimatsu, Julie

In 1793, America's first Patent Act was implemented, and the Patent Office (USPO) was established. Its curator, Thomas Jefferson, believed that the monopolies that would result from this act were necessary evils that would help make sure that "ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement." [1] He never would have imagined that 200 years later, society would be in a serious debate over the ability to patent human beings.

In 1985, the USPO decided that all plants, seeds and plant tissues could be patented. Furthermore, in 1987, all living organisms, including animals could be patented. The exclusion of human beings by the Patent Commissioner acknowledged that an ethical issue did exist; nevertheless, body parts, fetuses and embryos are all capable of being patented. [2]

The National Institute of Health (NIH has sought patents for DNA fragments from the human genome. Dr. Craig Venter, the man responsible for the sequencing of these fragments, admits that he "still has no idea what it does." [3] The fact that these fragments are currently useless demonstrates the hastiness of NIH and the ignorance of the Patent Office. NIH is not willing to take the time to discover a use unless they are ensured an economic incentive for it. As Dr. Ian Malcolm said, in "Jurassic Park," "You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, packaged it and now you're selling it." [4] The NIH did not discover DNA or the genome, yet they can take credit for "inventing" a part of it.

In 1976, a Seattle businessman named John Moore was treated for a rare form of leukemia at UCLA. The doctors there removed rare "hairy cell leukemia" cells from his spleen. Although Moore signed a standard consent form allowing research on his organ, he was not informed of the commercial value or it. From these cells, the doctors developed antibacterial and cancer-fighting proteins and went on to patent them. [1] They are valued at more than $3 billion. [5] In 1984, Moore sued, claiming that everyone has a right to their own body parts, and that he should be awarded a share of the profits. However, in 1990, the California Supreme Court denied that people have such rights to their bodies [1]. Ned Hettinger explores the rationale that people are "naturally entitled to the fruits of their labor." The Lockean rationale, similarly: "I made it and hence it is mine; it would not have existed but for me." [6] These are the grounds for granting a patent, and, under these rationales, the doctors should not have been granted one. They did not make or create...