Home

Featured Videos

Featured Commentary

Featured Book Reviews

Featured Articles

Suggested Reading

Return Home

AHB 101

A Science Timeline

Biotech Patenting

Conflicts of Interest

Hyping Biotech

Bioethics for Sale

Case Study

Research

Resources

News Archive

About Egg Donors

About Us

Contact Us

AHB Networking

The AHB Networker

AHB Student Clubs

Facebook

Networking Project

Links

Get Active!

Egg Donors Project

Human Gene Patents

Human-Animal Embryos

Designer Babies

Commentary, etc.

Current Commentary

Commentary Archive

Archive Feature

Alliance for Humane Biotechnology

Promoting Health Without Harm

AHB 101:  BIOTECH PATENTING
Two legal developments in 1980 opened the door to the patenting and commodification of human biology.  The U.S. Supreme Court decision Diamond v. Chakrabarty, established the principle that bioengineered life could be patented. To achieve this ruling, the court declared that living entities could be considered “compositions of matter.”   In the same year, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act.  This law permits universities and their researchers to privately patent innovations funded by public grants.  Creations and any health applications derived from them are removed from the public domain and from free access.

Today, the list of patentable living organisms and biomaterial include not only “lower” life forms, plants, and animals, but human genes and cells as well.  The techniques used to create and develop living entities also are patentable. 

These developments dramatically altered the social landscape in which science is conducted and stimulated further important social developments.  These changes include the intensification of the commodification and commercialization of life, and the transformation of scientific researchers into science entrepreneurs.  Science-entrepreneurs take money from companies that seek to capitalize on biotechnological innovation by directing research, and they start up their own biotech companies.  This behavior is characterized by a preoccupation with applied over “basic” science, advertising to create consumer demand, and a subordination of aims and agendas to the “bottom line” of stocks, shares, and profit.   

RECOMMENDED READING:
Andrews, Lori B. "Genes and Patent Policy: Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights"
Crichton, Michael. “Who Owns Your Genes: Patenting Life”
International Center for Technology Assessment, “Patent Watch”
 
Take me to: Stop Human Gene Patents