|
WASHINGTON — A New York scientist’s seven-year effort to win a patent
on a laboratory-conceived creature that is part human and part animal
ended in failure Friday, closing a historic and somewhat ghoulish chapter
in US intellectual property law.
The US Patent and Trademark Office rejected the claim, saying
the hybrid — designed for use in medical research but not yet created
— would be too closely related to a human to be patentable.
"I don’t think anyone knows in terms of crude percentages how to differentiate
between humans and nonhumans," said John Doll, a deputy commissioner
for patents. But the office also is not comfortable with a "we’ll
know it when we see it" approach, he added. "It would be very
helpful . . . to have some guidance from Congress or the courts," he
said.
The Newman case indicates how far US intellectual property law has lagged
behind biotechnology. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of patenting
life only once, and that was 25 years ago.
It also raises profound questions about the differences — and similarities
— between humans and other animals, and the limits of treating animals
as property.
from the Boston Globe
|