U.S. Denies Patent for a Too-Human Hybrid

[struggle4progress]

Scientist Sought Legal Precedent to Keep Others From Profiting From Similar 'Inventions'

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 13, 2005; Page A03

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 American intellectual-property law.

The U.S. 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.

Paradoxically, the rejection was a victory of sorts for the inventor, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y. An opponent of patents on living things, he had no intention of making the creatures. His goal was to set a legal precedent that would keep others from profiting from any similar "inventions."

But in an age when science is increasingly melding human and animal components for research -- already the government has allowed many patents on "humanized" animals, including a mouse with a human immune system -- the decision leaves a crucial question unanswered: At what point is something too human to patent? <snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19781-2005Feb12.html

[Maple]

1. So it will just be made

elsewhere.

[Igel]

24. It might be done here.

Nothing in the article said it was illegal. Just that the results can't be patented.

[98geoduck]

2. It's already been done. Crossing a Chimp and President should prove

that it's a total waste of time.

[sellitman]

8. Good one!

:evilgrin:

[imenja]

3. that is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be prevented

and outlawed. It's horrifying. We need reasonable allowances on scientific research that allow innovation. We need to permit and fund stem cell research. But creating another race of human/animals should not be permitted. I see nothing of good coming from this. People worry about how lab animals are treated. Can you imagine the ramifications of this sort of thing? If they want to do it in China or elsewhere, that's there problem. But science and profit don't justify every horrific invention created.

[insane_cratic_gal]

4. *rolls eyes*

This is a Stephen King Novel just waiting to be written. We all know how those turn out. Never well for humans lol..

Why would you want to do this? except to screw the order of mother nature?

[Maple]

5. If it can be done

it will be done.

[wovenpaint]

6. I'd be willing to wager

that it HAS been done already...:scared:

[Maple]

7. Yeah probably

and no country will be able to stop it.

Heroin, cocaine etc are all illegal, but flourish anyway.

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. I'm betting you're right. Maybe not reported, but I bet it's been done

It's not impossible that chimpanzees or bonobos might even be cross-fertile with humans to some degree, just by doing in vitro fertilization. Lions and tigers are, and so are many other species that are less obviously compatible. Making hybrid DNA, switching chromosomes or pieces of chromosomes, would eventually work. But it might even be easier than that.

The ethics issues are immense, and I categorically oppose making these sorts of hybrid almost-human creatures. But I'm betting that somewhere there are scientists sitting around in the lab and thinking not of the consequences but only that it would be cool to try it. A bonobo-human hybrid, they might say, why not give it a shot and see what happens? I'm betting there are viable ape-human hybrid embryos sitting in ultra-low temp storage somewhere in the world right now.

This is entirely different from giving a mouse or a pig a human immune system. That does not change their essential species identification or behavior, and it opens up potential in medical research and therapy that could be important.

[Disturbed]

10. Different topic but

human Cloning is now allowed in the UK.

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. Yeah, I saw that headline, but I don't know the story

I don't know exactly what it means. Does it mean just at the cellular or tissue level? That would be rather different from cloning a human being like Dolly the sheep. If you happen to have a link to a good summary of the new British law on human cloning, I'd be grateful for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Summary of the latest licence

(all cloning has to be licenced by a government board)

Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority on Tuesday granted a license to a team at the... Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland -- led by Professor Ian Wilmut, the scientist who created the cloned sheep known as "Dolly" -- to allow them to clone human embryos for stem cell research, the AP/Boston Globe reports (Wagner, AP/Boston Globe, 2/9). HFEA in August 2004 granted Europe's first license for scientists to clone human embryos for stem cell research to a team from the Newcastle Centre for Life at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Wilmut's team applied for a cloning research license in September 2004 to learn more about motor neuron disease. Although human cloning for reproductive purposes is illegal in Britain -- violators could face unlimited fines and a 10-year prison sentence -- cloning for research purposes is legal under the 2001 Human Embryology Act. So far, only a South Korean team has successfully cloned human embryos (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 10/14/04).

Research Details
Wilmut's team plans to use the same technique they used to create Dolly to conduct their research, Reuters reports. The process involves extracting genetic material from a single skin or blood cell of patients suffering from an inherited form of MND, inserting it into an egg that has had its own DNA removed and stimulating the egg to develop into an embryo. After the egg has developed for about six to 14 days, stem cells will be extracted and compared with the cells of MND patients' healthy and diseased cells (Holton, Reuters, 2/8). "This is not reproductive cloning in any way," Wilmut said, adding, "The eggs we use will not be allowed to grow beyond 14 days. Once the stem cells are removed for cell culture, the remaining cells will be destroyed. The embryonic stem cells that we derive in this way will only be used for research into motor neuron disease" (Reuters Health, 2/8). Although the technique will not be used to find a cure for MND, the research could lead to the development of medications to treat the disease (AFP/Yahoo! News, 2/8).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19882

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. Thanks for the summary! So this is embryonic stem cell research

The DNA does not come from a normally fertized egg but from a nonreproductive cell from a patient with an inherited form of motor neuron disease inserted into a single egg from which the DNA has been removed. After being stimulated to grow for less than 2 weeks, the cells will be used for medically relevant stem cell research; all unused cells will be destroyed after no more than 2 weeks.

This is a long way from cloning a human being like Dolly the sheep; it's embryonic stem cell research on very early stage embryos. It is indeed a STEP closer to cloning a human being, but that is not what will happen. However, if the results of the preliminary experiments in which the techniques used to generate the embryos are fully disclosed, an unethical person with the right training and assistance and in a suitably equipped laboratory COULD use the data to make it easier to take the next steps even though they are forbidden by law in Britain.

I am wondering if the laws forbidding cloning of a full human being in Britain extend to cloning of the great apes. They are so close to human, such experiements with them would be almost like a full dress rehersal for producing a human baby from a cloned cell. And of couse, making various ape-human hybrids would be readily possible, depending on the level of ethics of th researcher.

We are on shaky ethical ground here. The embryonic stem cell research specified in the license doesn't step over the line in my opinion. But I am wondering what barriers besides fines and a 10 year prison sentence in Britain are in place to prevent further steps toward producing a cloned human or human/ape baby. What barriers would be sufficient? Not clear to me. Very shaky ground.

[oneold1-4u]

14. Highly Likely

The Highly Likely was done for centuries in the past in highly intelligent societies. Humans were specially inbred in ways to create desired types for certain purposes. Simple warriors were one variety and the ones to be in command, another. The desired woman was one who was robust and yet fertile enough to give birth at least once a year and be able to do so for up to 25 years. There was no reason to mix them with other animals because this creation was an animal in most respects, to be tamed, trained, and used, the same as any livestock. The man-beast, if possible to create would be a "mule" and never to propagate itself, so would disappear and become only another mythical unicorn.

[rodeodance]

17. the boundary between human and non-human is arbitrary-depending

on how one defines "characterists>--and has become increasingly blurred--and will continue to do so. Science will continue to push the boundaries and moral and legal questions will play catch up.

[Swamp Rat]

11. That'll change when Arnold becomes prezeldent

[thecai]

12. This Is Very Disturbing

Although as soon as I heard about Dolly, I figured they had already cloned humans. Now even children are "desensitized" about cloning, (in preparation?) I'd be surprised if they haven't cloned hitler and bush in one...
Not to be a thumper (again) but Rev. 13 reminds me of cloning...

[thecai]

13. They Also Have

Goats making spider-webs, mice (or monkeys?) making human sperm... and keep in mind, this is only what they're telling us, which is NEVER the entire story.
on edit: "it's a freak show, baby!"

[rodeodance]

16. the court declared that patents could be issued on "anything under the sun

So, what is 'over' the Sun?



......For Rifkin, the case was deja vu in reverse. When U.S. scientist Ananda Chakrabarty applied for the first patent on a living organism -- a genetically engineered bacterium able to digest oil spills -- the case ended up in the Supreme Court because the patent office did not want to patent life forms. That time Rifkin filed the main amicus brief supporting the patent office.

They lost. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court declared that patents could be issued on "anything under the sun that is made by man."

The office has obliged, issuing patents on bacteria, yeast and, as of last fall, 436 animals.

In 1987, the patent office announced it would draw the line with humans, but it offered no legal rationale or statutory backing.

[heidler1]

19. Personally I believe we would be better off if we could reject the notion

that we're in any way uniquely sacred through the sole thing or being each created by some God. I feel that this fantasy causes so much hypocrisy that we are subjected to untold mental problems.

[LinuxInsurgent]

20. kinda ghoulishly scary...

anyone else remember the scene in Alien 4 where Ripley's half-alien, half-human clone visits the laboratory with 4 previous Ripley clone attempts...they were all ghoulishly deformed...uggh...

I think we should stop messing around with half-human, half-animal experiments. Medical genetic research is ok...but it's starting to sound like South Park's "a monkey with 11 human asses"!

[Tinoire]

21. I'm sure the Pentagon has already far exceeded our nighmares. n/t

[Vladimir]

23. IMO, there is no point in trying to outlaw

these sorts of things because someone, somewhere, is going to do them, and if they are dangerous it may be exceedingly stupid to not know the results and dangers before they are unleashed in some illegal lab in the middle of nowhere. Insted the state should, IMO, concentrate on throughly studying these techniques so that they can either be exploided or so that the dangers inherent in them are discovered.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

29. When guns are outlawed...

Only outlaws will carry guns.

[Vladimir]

32. I dunno about guns

My point was more that to outlaw research into this leaves one exposed by one's ignorance when someone else develops the technology with whatever effects it may or may not have.

[Placebo]

25. I don't see the big problem...

if you're just combining some parts of human genetic material with that of say, a rabbit for example. That actually seems wise and prudent for research and experimentation purposes. But, if you're trying to cross an ape and a human, however, that just seems wrong. Especially if it would be born with dominant human characteristics.

I guess it depends on how much of these "chimera" creatures/animals would have been human. Their nervous systems? Their brains? Their external physical features? I'm open to the concept, but it needs strict regulation.

[idlisambar]

26. It likely has already been done

There are rumors of experiments conducted within China and even the U.S. in the early part of this century.

Humans and Chimpanzees technically could mate without any special laboratory intervention and produce viable offspring, though the offspring would likely not be fertile. Just as donkeys and horses can be crossed to produce a mule, and tigers and lions can make Liger, a chimp and human can be crossed to produce a humanzee. Humans and Chimps are that close genetically.

[saskatoon]

30. rumors of experiments

a country could clone an army of humanlikes who could be programmed to fight their wars

[bobthedrummer]

27. Research monsters have no validity anyway.

Look ma, no hands!

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. coooooooooool

finally, the next step in human evolution. I was getting quite bored with people the way they are.

I wants me a alligator man or a koala woman. :D

[SomewhereOutThere424]

31. If I remember correctly

Was it this man or another who tried to pass a patent to the government for an animal crossed more powerful demi human for slave type work, and was rejected and ridiculed for being a mad man?

What scares me more than science's seemingly lack of limitation, is the equal lack of human imagination for things that are treacherous. Look at how animals are treated, look at how animals are killed in fur shops? Do you think the poor sap born as part fox is going to live a happy life like the furry community wants to believe; or he's going to end up having less rights than the native americans and then ending up being killed by a gun-ho texan cowboy, and no one will end up caring how painful it was? The people born this way are most likely going to have stunted intelligence like one born with mental retardation, and end up with their heads on some scmuck's wall. Even if it will never be fully outlawed, I think we as decent minded people should fight the existance of yet ANOTHER exploited minority, perhaps the most exploited and most minor of all.

I sometimes pity the day man walked upright and grew opposable thumbs, but I more pity the day he grabbed a club and killed with it.