Patenting New Animals
Nearly 60 years ago, Congress amended the patent law to permit the patenting of new plants developed by grafts, and more recently, the U.S. Supreme Court extended this idea to the realm of biotechnology, allowing the patenting of new microorganisms that had been produced by genetic engineering.
The next step has now occurred. Within the last few weeks, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would grant patents on newly developed animals, a step that has reopened the debate over this issue and over biotechnology in general.
Opponents of patenting animals say that plants and microorganisms are one thing, but the fact that they don’t feel pain or have nervous systems makes them qualitatively different from animals, who do. These people fear that the Patent Office’s decision takes us one step closer to the Brave New World in which life itself loses its meaning and is treated as just one more commodity to be manipulated.
But these opponents are more well-meaning than well-informed. Animal genetics is so complicated that the prospect of creating entirely new species in the laboratory is farfetched. At best, biologists can only tinker with the animals that nature has created, producing, perhaps, cows that give more milk or chickens that resist disease. In fact, making animals that are more beneficial to humans has been the goal of animal domestication for millennia, but instead of improving the breed through selective breeding--the traditional approach--scientists are now trying to do it on the molecular level.
Genetic engineering is just the latest example of humanity’s effort to control its environment and thereby improve its life. The more food that can be produced for a hungry world, the better off people will be. This is a wholly worthwhile goal, and the Patent Office is right to encourage it by offering commercial protection to those who develop these techniques.
Biotechnologists are a long, long way from being able to create new forms of life, and society is not abdicating its right to reconsider the issue if and when they can. In the meantime, the technologies of genetic engineering that have been developed in the last decade or so are being put to good use. It would be a mistake to throw out potential benefits in order to avoid potential pitfalls.
Enlightened discussion and debate over these issues are worthwhile, and remind us to remain vigilant over the use of these powerful new tools. But discussion should not be allowed to halt progress.
