Posted by Ellen on May 17, 2002 at 09:57:56:
The University of Missouri receives
patent for human-cloning method
By Antonio Regalado
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 16 — In a bizarre twist to the cloning saga, the University of Missouri has been granted what may be the first patent on human cloning
THE U.S. PATENT and Trademark Office has explicitly said it won’t allow patents on cloned humans. But early last month, it granted a patent to Missouri livestock-cloning expert Randall Prather on a method for making them.
It wasn’t clear if the move marked a loosening of agency policy on such inventions. Brigid Quinn, a spokeswoman for the Patent Office said, “Our policy is that we do not issue patents to claims drawn to humans. Our policy has not changed.”
A patent attorney familiar with the case said because Dr. Prather asked only to patent a method of making people — and not people themselves — that it may not have triggered the agency’s concerns.
The patent is likely to renew urgent calls for a ban on human cloning. But scores of other cloning patents now await approval, a sign the technology may be outpacing legislators’ ability to regulate it. Just this year, scientists have added rabbits and a house cat to the growing list of animals they have cloned, including sheep, cattle and goats.
Experts said the Missouri patent didn’t give anyone the right to clone people. It is possible to hold patents on inventions that are otherwise illegal to use, such as thermonuclear weapons.
The patent, No. 6,211,429, arose from Dr. Prather’s work cloning pigs, but the patent describes the technology much more generally. “The patent includes all mammals. And yes, humans are mammals,” said
Christian Basey, a spokesman for the university. Dr. Prather couldn’t be reached for comment.
Mr. Basey said the school is opposed to human cloning and, if necessary, would use the patent to block anyone else from cloning people.
Patents on living things got rolling in 1980, when the Supreme Court gave the green light to a General Electric patent on an oil-eating bacterium. But in 1987 the Patent Office said patents on humans wouldn’t be permitted, due to conflicts with the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of slavery.
However, the Patent Office’s thinking has been in flux, and its stance remains confusing to many legal experts. Many believe the agency lacks authority to reject patents on human beings, but has done so to avoid controversy.
Opponents of human cloning and genetic tailoring of the species see the patent as a red flag. “Once they own these processes, they will have locked up commercial eugenics. You will shop for specific traits for your offspring and pay the companies that own the methodology,” predicts Jeremy Rifkin, a well-known biotechnology critic who heads the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.