December 9, 2003 Volume 1, Number 18
House Votes to Ban Patenting of Humans to Avoid New �Slavery�
A little-noticed House of Representatives vote yesterday on patent law
may prove to be a profound victory for the fight for the Culture of Life
in the United States.
In a 242 to 176 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.
2799, the Federal Year 2004 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
Imbedded within the 1000-page bill is an amendment introduced by Dave
Weldon (R-Fl) banning any governmental right to process and issue patents
of "human organisms" such as human embryos (including those created in
vitro) and cloned humans.
The amendment, added to the bill in July of this year, consists of a
brief statement that "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this act may be used to issue patents on claims directed to
or encompassing a human organism."
Advocates of the ban on the patenting of humans argue that such patents
would violate the 13th amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits
�slavery or involuntary servitude,� since the patented humans would be
legally owned by others. In fact, the US Patent Office (USPTO) has
advanced this argument at least since 1987, when it decided that "a claim
directed to or including within its scope a human being will not be
considered patentable subject matter�[since] the grant of a limited, but
exclusive property right in a human being is prohibited by the
Constitution."
In addition, the proponents of the ban contend that human life would be
transformed into a commodity to be commercialized if such patents were
issued. As Lori Andrews, director of the Institute for Science, Law and
Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology stated in a recent
Chicago Tribune opinion piece, "This obscure question of patent law will
have a profound impact on the type of society our children will grow up
in. If patents on human embryos are allowed, then biotech companies will
market babies with certain traits just like Perdue markets chicken or Ford
markets sport-utility vehicles."
The biotech industry, represented by BIO, the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, contends that the amendment goes much further than the 1987
US Patent Office decision, and that it will stop potentially live-saving
medical research. Bio argues that if such a ban were passed, it would
prevent patents on cell lines, genes, living organs, and stem cells, which
"sets a dangerous precedent and stifles research."
However, Weldon argues that BIO opposes all regulations, including the
USPTO regulation. According to Weldon, �My amendment has exactly the same
scope as the current USPTO policy, and cannot be charged with the radical
expansions of policy that BIO and its allies claim. In reality, BIO
opposes this amendment because it opposes the current USPTO policy as
well, and has a better chance of nullifying this policy in court (or
having courts reinterpret it into uselessness) if it lacks explicit
support in statutory law. This goal is apparent from BIO's own �fact
sheet� opposing the amendment. There BIO argues that human beings should
be patentable, if they arise from anything other than �conventional
reproduction��In other words, humans should be seen as �inventions� and
thus be patentable on exactly the same grounds as animals are now.�
Andrews thinks BIO is driven by considerations of hefty potential
profits. �What, then, is BIO's real agenda? Perhaps where others of us see
smiling babies, BIO sees dollar signs. With more than 4 million births a
year in the United States, the market for genetically enhanced embryos
might be as lucrative as that for Prozac or Viagra.�
Copyright � Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org