Letter: Patenting the mouse
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.Sir: Susan Watts's article ('Backlash blocks 'invention' of animals', 30 November) reports a ground swell against the patenting of genetically modified animals. This is fed by opinions such as that expressed by Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming, whose farming objectives I broadly support, that 'genetic engineering nearly always (my emphasis) imposes pain and stress on the newly created animals'.
We can see no behavioural or physiological sign of pain or stress in the sheep which Pharmaceutical Proteins genetically modified so that they produce life-saving therapeutics in their milk. Other research groups are working with the objective of genetically modifying farm animals so as to confer on them resistance to specific diseases which, if successful, will have the potential to reduce pain and stress.
By campaigning against patents on such animals when they are the result of novel, useful invention, the lobby groups may be about to 'score an own goal'.
If patents are allowed on animals, the use of such animals is thereby restricted to the inventor and/or its (known) licensees. This use can be policed. If the Upjohn mouse is not patent protected, anyone can use this technology without reference to Upjohn or anyone else, and this could paradoxically result in greater use. In the most extreme case, a 'painful' exploitation of a particular end result may be refused a patent and therefore become widely used, while an 'acceptable' exploitation could be afforded protection and its use thereby restricted to the inventor.
This ultimate illogicality may serve to illustrate that the patent system is the wrong battleground for this debate. All inventive, novel, useful developments in any field should be patentable, but undesirable use and exploitation of animals should be controlled through existing and, if necessary, new specific animal welfare legislation which is knowledgeably applied on a case-by-case basis.
Yours faithfully,
RON JAMES
Managing Director
Pharmaceutical Proteins Ltd
Edinburgh
2 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments