No for the onkomaus

The harvard patent on the "mouse" stay with restrictions

As in 1992 the european patent office (epa) in munchen the "mouse" patented, the waves of the emport hit particularly high. The critics of the "life industry" the patent ep 169672 appeared as a monstrous because life was degraded to the technical product. To date, the patent of the us harvard university in cambridge for the transgenic suction animal was compressed. Against this patent, more than 100 organizations (federal association of animal experiments, people for animal rights), individuals and the state of hesse a total of 17 collection defects in front of the epo, which has not been decided to date today. After a changeful procedural history, the patent, which remained effective in the meantime, is now renegotiated from the opposition department of the epo.

In 1995, the first opposition negotiation against the patent endlessly ended, because the opposition drivers against the change of change of the chamber protested to the patent. This had been doubted by the opponents as not just maby. The chamber had then ended the macaway negotiation and continued the procedure in writing. By creating in the opposition department and eu amendments, the opposition proceedings had to be completely renegotiated.

The cancer mouse is a disease model animal. In the dna of the tier, a human oncogene is installed during the embryonic stage, a gene, which is highly probably guaranteed that the animals in the early age of cancer. At the manipulated animals, therapies should be tested for cancer patients. In addition to the cancer mouse, there is now mause, which are genetically manipulated so that they suffer from alzheimer’s or aids. Critics of cancer mouse point out that they have not been used in cancer research so far at all. Under animal welfare sites is also problematic that organisms are created that a priori is creating suffering. A central criterion for the highly conditioned suitability of the transgenic organism for illness is mainly that cancer is caused multifactorial. In addition to genetic disposition, psychic causes, diet or lifestyle of people as relevant factors could be considered, which could not be studied at the cancer mouse.

The battle for the biopatent is to be observed since the beginning of the 80s. When the first patent was given to a bacterium in the us, the conflict with a patent law, which is geared towards technical inventions, was determined by reference to the peculiarity of the bacterium. These organisms are far more detailed as an animals. The critics, on the other hand, not only worried about the legal trick to reduce living beings on inorganic matter, but mostly blurred the beginning of the end: finals the biopatization of man.

In the us, the cancer mouse was already patented in 1988 as a first suction. However, the patenting present to the epo does not only recognize a specific mouse and its offspring, since in accordance with the european patent convention (epu), which, inter alia, are animal species in the eu member states of the eu (art. 53b epu). In principle, the patent so far extended to the entire suction animals – such as cancer dogs or cancer monkeys – which have a carcinogenic vulnerability. That was the epa after the current revision of the problem but too far, so that the patent should now extend on rodents alone.

Greenpeace recognizes only a protective surgery in this limitation of the biopatite. "Never before the patent law was so badly abused and bent", christoph then said, patent expert of the group. According to environmental protectioners, more than twenty other patents have been granted on animals by the epo. In the meantime, such an onset of piles, which have been decided since 1998 by the epa according to the eu’s controversial biopatent directive (new premieges of greenpeace to the european patent office).

The critics are aimed at a fundamental clarification. It does not commit to inventions, but to access the gene industry to organic nature. In principle, everything that can be manipulated genetically engineering can be monopolized under profit sequences. Life is not an invention of the gene industry and therefore not patentable. The critics see in biopatents the massive injury of ethical barriers, but also the end of biodiversity. Life is reduced to an industrial product such as a car engine or a gluing bulb. The council of europe also decided in his recommendation "biotechnology and intellectual property" (recommendation 1425 (1999)): "the assembly believes that plants, animals, human genes, cells, ties and organs are neither regarded as inventions, nor monopolies are subjected, which are respected by patents."

The genetic engineering understands itself as the modern final technology par excellence, which fertilizes the same way science and economy in order to build the deficiency person for a hostile nature. Disease detection, therapy and improved resistance of nature against dams, hunger rugging and gentle handling of the environment are called as arguments for inconsequential fields of application. Thus, the defenders of genetic engineering refer to the fact that the transfer of genetically manipulated bodies in the future there is a lower risk of strength for humans. It is hoped that this type of xenotransplantation could become routine at organ deficiency. Both at chorea hunton and parkinson’s disease, brain tie of unborn pigs were transplanted in the usa. The life industry therefore defends itself against the consideration by the "patent glasses", but that they do not want to do without how the high investments are to be worthwhile.

The discussion about people, mausage and pigs accompanies the fright of the gentle-patented person, the fear of genetic engineering rule over human existence. But it is unlikely that people will not take all funds to improve their frail existence, thus helping to help the spool (cf. In addition in case knitting of bioethics). Whether you have this path with the "onkomaus" being together will continue to be open. The biopatic critics have already begotted to lose complaint against the compromise decision of the epo.