lol, a scanner darkly, etc. . . . On 9/21/08, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Peter > > Fascinating indeed. I don't know of the outcome if any, but I'll look > around. > >>Undaunted, Newman yesterday filed an appeal to the patent office. > > It's great when people get undaunted. > > "Private ownership of inventions is not the only way progress has > been made in the history of science and the history of medicine," > Newman said. > > Indeed not if you measure progress according to the principles of > science and medicine, or virtually any other principles, but I don't > think Monsanto measures it that way, the bottom-line isn't a > principle. > > Anyway, what's human? What's not human? Don't we all know non-humans > who turn out to be a lot more human than some of the humans we know? > How do you separate humans from the rest of life? I don't think you > can, or anyway not without distortion and hubris. If it isn't > biologically alive then I guess it isn't human (eg Monsanto, which > doesn't run on DNA), otherwise maybe it is. So, no genes to patent, > sorry about that. > > The whole thing's nuts, and psychopathic, frankly. > >>"When we applied for this patent a year and half ago, people reacted to it >> as >>if it was some kind of science fiction scenario," Newman said. > > It IS a science fiction scenario, only it's real (like quite a lot of > science fiction scenarios). > > Thanks Peter. > > All best > > Keith > > >>Hi Keith ; >> >>Fascinating article on this subject. But it is dated 1999, any idea >>of any progress that has been made? >> >>http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/rifikinhc.cfm >> >>US Human/Chimpanzee Life Form Patent Challenge by >>Jeremy Rifkin & Stuart Newman Will Now Go to the Federal Courts >> >>U.S. Ruling Aids Opponent Of Patents for Life Forms >>By Rick Weiss >>Washington Post Staff Writer >>Thursday, June 17, 1999; Page A2 >> >>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has turned down a scientist's >>controversial request for a patent on creatures that would be part animal >> and >>part human--bizarre life forms that no one has made before, but that might >>prove useful in medical experiments. >> >>But unlike most patent office rejectees, the scientist, Stuart Newman, is >>celebrating. The New York Medical College biology professor never intended >> to >>make the animal-human hybrids. He applied for the patent to gain the legal >>standing to challenge U.S. patent policy, which allows patents on living >>entities. >> >>The patent office ruled in part that Newman's invention is too human to be >>patentable. By doing so, it opened the door to a series of legal challenges >>available to all patent applicants--a path that could lead to the Supreme >>Court. >> >>Newman hopes his appeals will force a judicial and congressional >> reassessment >>of the nation's 19-year-old policy of granting patents on life forms. That >>policy, based on a single court decision, has provided the foundation for >>today's $13 billion biotechnology industry. >> >>Some patent experts this week criticized Newman for "abusing" the federal >>patent review system to bypass the legal avenues by which patent law is >>normally made and changed. But even some critics confirmed that the >> strategy >>appeared to be working. >> >>In particular, said John Barton, a patent specialist at the Stanford >>University School of Law, the ploy has forced the patent office to >>acknowledge the relatively thin legal ice upon which its policies on life >>patents rest. The ruling also reveals the agency's apparent uncertainty >> about >>just how human a creature must be before it is no longer patentable, Barton >>and others said. >> >>The patent office has argued that to grant patents on people would violate >>the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery. But >> neither >>the patent office nor Congress has ever defined "human." >> >>That question is of more than philosophical import today. Already, several >>patents have been allowed on animals containing human genes or organs. And >>just this week, scientists in Massachusetts said they were creating live >>embryos by combining cow and human cells. >> >>"When we applied for this patent a year and half ago, people reacted to it >> as >>if it was some kind of science fiction scenario," Newman said. >> "Developments >>in the past year have shown that similar things are already on the table >> and >>being considered seriously." >> >>In its rejection letter, the patent office says Newman's invention >> "embraces" >>a human being, but it does not say why other creatures with human >> components >>do not "embrace" a human being, said Washington patent attorney Patrick >>Coyne, who filed Newman's application. >> >>"This puts a big question mark on all commercial interests involving human >>embryos and embryonic . . . cells," said biotechnology activist Jeremy >>Rifkin, a co-applicant on Newman's claim, who has rallied religious leaders >>against patents on life forms. >> >>The agency concedes in its letter that in the Supreme Court's single foray >>into the topic--a 5 to 4 decision in 1980 allowing a patent on a >> microbe--the >>justices did not include humans on their list of nonpatentable life forms. >>But Stephen Kunin, the patent office's deputy assistant commissioner for >>patent policy, said the agency "believes" that Congress did not intend to >>allow patents on humans or on creatures that are essentially human when it >>passed the National Patent Act in 1956. The agency, however, offers no >> basis >>for that belief, Coyne said. >> >>Biotechnology executives have said that without access to patents on >>gene-altered animals and other living entities, they would not make the >>investments needed to develop new drugs and other products. Yesterday, some >>criticized Newman's legal attack. >> >>"The net outcome of this attempt may hurt valuable medical research and >>ultimately deny therapies for patients who need them," said Carl Feldbaum, >>president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. >> >>Undaunted, Newman yesterday filed an appeal to the patent office. >> >>"Private ownership of inventions is not the only way progress has been made >>in the history of science and the history of medicine," Newman said. > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 > messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
