'Onco-mouse' spreads confusion in patent office
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.TOM WILKIE
Science Editor
The public hearing to decide whether it is possible to patent a genetically engineered mouse broke up in confusion yesterday, with no decision being reached.
However, officials of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich have told Harvard University to redraft the terms of its patent concerning a mouse which had been genetically engineered to develop cancer.
The hearing, which began on Tuesday and ran late into the evenings, ended abruptly yesterday morning, with the four EPO officials gathering their papers and leaving the room.
They refused to hear protests from the British barrister, Daniel Alexander, at the hearing's premature termination. However, they did say that opposition could be made in writing rather than orally to a tribunal.
Peter Stevenson, from Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), which has co- ordinated opposition to the patent in the United Kingdom, said: "I think we made great headway although I would not like to guess at the final outcome."
The original patent covered not just mice but any non-human mammal with an inserted oncogene (cancer-causing gene). It now appears likely that the patent, if allowed at all, will be restricted so as to exclude possible onco-rabbits, onco-dogs, or onco-monkeys.
The opposition, from religious groups and animal welfare organisations, centred on moral and legal objections to the idea that a living animal could be classified as an "invention" and thus patented, rather than as a "product of nature", and unpatentable.
CIWF and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection also claimed it was immoral to patent an animal brought into existence specifically to develop painful lethal disease. Article 53a of the European Patent Convention prohibits patents whose exploitation would be contrary to morality.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments