Patenting of Life forms
Patenting of Life Forms: Evolution and Development
Project: Intellectual Property Rights
Submitted to:
Ms. Tulika Shree
Submitted by: Neeraj EkkaRoll No. 784th year, VIIth Semester
HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTIt gives me the greatest of pleasure to thank Ms.
Tulika Shree for her invaluable help and guidance without which it
would not have been possible to make the project.Her insight into
the topic and continuous motivation has been a source of great
inspiration for me.I would also like to thank my parents and my
friends who supported me throughout the making of my project and
helped me as and when they could.Neeraj EkkaSem. - VII
CONTENTSIntroduction3Creation of New Life Question3Patenting
Life Forms: US Perspective4Diamond v. Chakrabarty Case5Further
Development of Life Form Patents6The Indian Perspective7The Future
of Patenting Life Forms12Bibliography15
Introduction
The patenting of life forms is a relatively new phenomenon, but
its incidence has grown at a tremendous rate in recent years,
especially since the establishment of the Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in 1995. Most countries had prohibited patenting
of biological resources, but the TRIPS treaty makes it mandatory
for WTO member states to allow patenting of at least certain life
forms (microorganisms) and certain living processes
(microbiological processes). It also mandates the intellectual
property protection of plant varieties either by patents or an
effective sui generis system. The floodgates having been opened to
patenting of biological resources has led to serious consequences.
Many critics of patenting of life forms have argued that it is
inappropriate to use the patent system to reward scientific work in
the field of biological resources and processes, as living
organisms are qualitatively different from non-living
materials.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Richard T. Hull, Ph.D., The Creation
and Patenting of New Life Forms: A New Assault on Academic
Freedom?, Given as a University Honors Lecture Governors
Quadrangle, SUNY at Buffalo March 20, 1988]
Creation of New Life Question
There is a conceptual issue involved in the phrase, creation of
new life forms, and the conceptual issue lies in how and where to
draw a line between creation of a new life form and modification or
manipulation of an old one. As Dismukes has put it, to call
intervention in the normal processes by which strains of bacteria
exchange genetic information Human handiwork wildly exaggerates
human power and displays the same hubris and ignorance of biology
that have had such devastating impact on the ecology of our
planet.[footnoteRef:2] Such arrogance perhaps leads to the notion
that our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of life is
approaching completeness and that we are in a position to create
nature after our own desires. [2: Ibid]
The conceptual link between creation of new life forms and an
exclusive patent right is through those forms being the result of
someones own efforts. But of course the new life forms that are
being produced by means of the technology of recombinant DNA differ
from manufactured objects; even if we grant that a new bacterium is
the product of some persons or laboratorys effort, its subsequent
generations of offspring are not the products of human effort, but
of natural bacterial reproduction. My Datsun, despite all my
efforts to coax and coddle it, will never produce another Datsun.
The capacity of self-reproduction is a hallmark of the distinction
between living and nonliving; the notion of patenting a life form
threatens to muddle our capacity to keep clear on such elements of
thought. L.B. Cebik has objected that, in granting the
patentability of new forms of life, the Supreme Court is not
undermining the concept of life. It holds that it is merely
necessary to determine whether an entity, living or inanimate,
qualifies as an invention by determining whether there has been
sufficient manipulation, directly or indirectly (e.g., via
machinery or designed chemical processes), by human beings to
qualify the resultant entity as human made. But of course such a
judgment will be valuational and philosophical. Short of putting
together from non-organic elements a cluster of functioning genes
and a cell body to house them, such research will always borrow
from the natural technology of living systems, always be working
within the natural confines of organisms not of human invention.
Any judgment that a modified organism is human made has got to
involve a deliberate turn away from the facts of
nature.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Shelley A. Rowland & James W. Piper,
Patents and Biotechnology: Issues Around the Patenting of Life
Forms]
Patenting Life Forms: US Perspective
What is patentable in the United States according to statute
dates back to the patent law of 1793, which declared, in language
written by Thomas Jefferson, that patents could be obtained for
"any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new or useful improvement thereof." Jefferson's
phrasing remained -- and remains -- at the core of the U.S. patent
code, except for the eighteenth-century word "art," which was
replaced in a 1952 Congressional overhaul of patent law by the word
"process."[footnoteRef:4] [4: Ibid]
The code said nothing about patenting life, but a key precedent
discouraging it was established in 1889, when, in a landmark
ruling, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents rejected an application
for a patent to cover a fiber identified in the needles of a pine
tree. He noted that ascertaining the composition of the trees in
the forest was "not a patentable invention, recognized by statute,
any more than to find a new gem or jewel in the earth would entitle
the discoverer to patent all gems which should be subsequently
found." The commissioner added that it would be "unreasonable and
impossible" to allow patents upon the trees of the forest and the
plants of the earth. The commissioners ruling formed the basis for
what came to be known as the "product-of -nature" doctrine -- that
while processes devised to extract what is found in nature can be
patented, objects discovered there cannot. They are not inventions,
nor can they as a class be made anyones exclusive
property.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Ameen Jauhar and Swati Narnaulia,
Patenting Life the American, European and Indian Way Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights Vol 15, January 2010, pp 55-65]
There was no other extension of patent law to vital entities for
forty years, but in 1970 Congress established a system -- through
the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) for granting intellectual
property rights in sexually reproducing plants. The protection was
weaker than what patents provided; it was nevertheless a step
forward for plant breeders. More important, during that period it
became possible to identify living organisms with a high degree of
specificity through such markers as blood types and, in the 1970s,
their DNA.The landmark breakthrough in the field of patenting life
forms was through the case of Diamond vs. Chakraborthy. Ananda
Chakrabarty, a biochemist at the General Electric Company, having
genetically modified the bacterium to consume oil slicks, filed for
a patent on the living, altered bacterium. In 1987, the United
States Commissioner of Patents announced that "the Patent and
Trademark Office now considers non-naturally occurring nonhuman
multi cellular living organisms, including animals, to be
patentable subject matter. The Commissioner was simply following
the Supreme Court's lead. In allowing the patenting of a
genetically altered oil-eating bacterium seven years earlier, the
Court claimed Congress intended patentable subject matter to
"include anything under the sun that is made by man.[footnoteRef:6]
[6: Ibid]
Diamond v. Chakrabarty Case[footnoteRef:7] [7: 35 U.S.C.
101]
Patents on living organisms were not expressly excluded from the
purview of patentable matter, such a paradigm gained endorsement
from the US Supreme Court in the epoch marking decision in Diamond
v Chakrabarty. In this case, the US Supreme Court held in a
majority decision of 5:4, that Congress, while drafting the
enactment in question (i.e. The US Patent Act) intended to include
anything made by man under the sun. In reaching its decision, the
Supreme Court provided the requisite legal protection to living
organisms as long as they fulfilled patentability criteria under 35
U.S.C. 101. In Chakrabarty, the appellant (a microbiologist)
challenged the USPTOs decision refusing to grant a patent on his
mutated bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas containing therein at
least two stable energy-generating plasmids. This human-engineered
organism could help breakdown oil particles and control oil spills;
a novel attribute on which the appellant based his arguments for
the formation of a process for generating organism and for some
unique characteristics of the bacterium per se. The USPTO conceded
that extraordinary characteristics exhibited made the organism non
natural and hence could not be ousted as a product of nature. The
USPTO though agreeing to the plea of the applicant that such
organism was not naturally occurring in nature and could not be
barred patent rights as a product of nature. The sole ground for
dismissing the patent application was that the subject matter
concerned was a living organism. The Supreme Court of the United
States, while examining these different arguments, agreed that an
engineered organism constituted a novel invention and was not a
product of nature. It also stated that the Congress could have
plausibly foreseen the rapid expansion of science and technology
and stated that the patent umbrella can be expanded to any and
every thing that man had made under the sun. The Supreme Court
agreed that a challenge posed on two previous legislations which
regulated certain forms of plants from being patented should not
prevent the appellant from successfully patenting his novel
organism. The Supreme Court, while expanding the functional
framework of 101, held that if a product were novel and portrayed
characteristics which were hitherto unknown to mankind, it would
suffice the clauses requirement.[footnoteRef:8] [8: LOUISM. GUENIN,
Patents, Ethics, Human Life forms, available at
http://guenin.med.harvard.edu/Documents/Ethics%20of%20Patents%20on%20Human%20Life%20Forms.pdf]
Further Development of Life Form Patents
"Utility patents" for plants came next, and by the end of the
decade Harvard University received the first patent on animal life.
Its patent was for a mouse genetically altered to be susceptible to
breast cancer. As the project's major sponsor, Du Pont possesses
commercial rights and the chemical company is selling the patented
research specimen for fifty dollars apiece. The Patent and
Trademark Office has recently issued three additional patents on
types of animals, all for mice to be used in biomedical research.
Although human organisms have not been patented, human material
routinely is patented. One particularly controversial example is
the University of California at Los Angeles's patent of a cell line
produced from a spleen removed from a Leukemia patient named John
Moore. Although the commercial potential of the pharmaceuticals
that this cell line can produce is several billion dollars, the
California Supreme Court has ruled that Moore has no ownership
interests in these cells after they have been removed from his
body. Post this landmark judgment the Supreme Court has, in a
series of decisions, averted from the age old doctrine and declared
that life form constitutes patentable matter until the time it is
significantly altered via human intervention.[footnoteRef:9] [9: M.
Chakrabarty, Patenting Life Forms: Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow.]
The Indian Perspective
The Indian Patents Act, 1970 governs patent protection in India.
It has been gradually amended over 1999-2005 to suit Indias
international obligations under TRIPS. The TRIPS seeks to remove
perceived barriers to free-trade by establishing minimum IPR
standards across the world. It directs member countries to provide
for product patents to all technologies and on microorganisms. It
also makes non-compliance with the statutes of the WTO liable to
prosecution and severe punitive action including sanctions or
fines. In spite of safeguards and other flexibilities provided in
the form of preferential treatment to the developing and least
developed countries, scope of patentability as outlined under TRIPS
is considered far too wide by most developing members. They argue
that overly strong IPR with extended scope and duration of
protection are proving to be detrimental to the very object and
purpose of TRIPS Agreement. India has always maintained that patent
rights should be exercised coherently with the objectives of mutual
advantage of patent-holders and users of patented medicines, in a
manner conducive to social and economic welfare and to the balance
of rights and obligations.'[footnoteRef:10] [10: Ibid]
When India became a party to the WTO in 1995, in spite of strong
civil society opposition, TRIPS was an indispensable part of the
deal. The then national policy makers hoped that the overall gains
made from greater links with the global trading community would
more than upset any possible dangers of accepting a stricter IP
regime. Having contested to fully utilize its ten year transition
period India has introduced three major amendments to the Patents
Act, 1970. The first among these was the 1999 amendment which
introduced exclusive marketing rights (EMRs) and established
mailbox applications for patents for pharmaceuticals and
agrochemicals from 1 January 1995.The next amendment came in 2002
which allowed for patents on microorganisms.[footnoteRef:11] [11:
Patenting of Higher life forms and related issues, Report to the
Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating
Committee]
Even prior to this amendment, the judiciary had interpreted the
patent regime under the unamended Patent Act to cover a patent on a
living organism much to the displeasure of the Indian Patent
Office. The Honble High Court of Calcutta, in the matter of
Dimminaco A G v. Controller of Patent Designs &
Ors[footnoteRef:12], was approached by a Swiss company which had
been refused a process patent for preparation of a live vaccine for
Bursitis. The Patent Office had denied to grant a patent on the
grounds that the so-called invention, containing a living organism,
was not patentable as under 2(1) (j). The Patent Office contended
that the process of making a vaccine with a living organism is
neither a process resulting in an article, substance, nor is it
manner of manufacture. It had claimed that since the vaccine
involved processing of certain micro orgasm it was only a natural
process. Even though there was no express or implied bar in the
Indian Patent Act 1970, patents were traditionally granted only to
non-living inventions that fulfilled the patentability criteria.
The appellant contended that there had been a violation of rule of
law as preference was given to discretionary administrative policy
over the statutory definition of what an invention entailed, which
did not bar the barring of a patent on the process of manufacturing
a vaccine, containing a live virus.[footnoteRef:13] [12: 2002 IPLR
255 Cal. H.C.] [13: Daniel J. Kevles, A history of patenting life
in the United States with comparative attention to Europe and
Canada, 2002]
The Court observed that the term manufacture had not been
defined in the Act and consulted a variety of dictionary meanings
to conclude that the process for manufacturing such a vaccine is
new process and such new process was patentable under S.5 read with
S.2(I)(i) of the Patent Act. The Honble Court relied on the
vendibility test to determine the question of patentability of a
process. It concluded that since the claim process for patent leads
to a vendible product, it is certainly a substance after going
through the process of manufacture. [footnoteRef:14] [14: Ibid]
This decision of the Calcutta High Court is also seen as
concurrent with the position in US and most EU countries which
allow patentability of biotech inventions. Subsequent to the
decision, the Act has been amended by the Patents Amendment Act
2002. The amendment has changed the definition of invention. The
earlier requirements under Section 2(j) which added to the primary
requirement of newness and usefulness like those of an invention
being art, product or process, method or manner of manufacture;
machine, apparatus or other article; substance produced by
manufacture, including any useful improvements on the said has been
omitted. The definition has been simplified and the only
requirements of patentability now are that a product of process
must be new, non-obvious and useful. The relevance of the decision
subsequently, though debatable does highlight the relative
unwillingness of the judiciary to refuse the patent merely on
ethical grounds. However in the new scheme of things it is
uncertain whether addition of S.3 (j), which excludes from
patentability essentially biological processes for production of
plants and animals, or plants and animals in whole or in part other
than microorganisms, would derail the benefits for future
applicant, if the subject of patent application was adjudged to not
be a microorganism by the virtue of being a non-microscopic
organism.It is therefore necessary to have a clear working
definition for microorganism either as a legislative explanatory
amendment or judicial pronouncement. A review of the draft manual
of patent, practice and procedure by the national working group on
patent laws also reveals that there is a need to define the term
microorganism. The deletion of 5 of the Act, pursuant to the 2005
amendment, which provided for only process patents on chemical
processes, including biochemical, biotechnological and
microbiological processes as well as substances intended for or
capable of being used as food or medicine, it appears, if the
Honble High Courts intention is read right, that the doors have
been opened for patenting products with living microorganisms with
both legislative as well as judicial sanction. The 2005 amendment
substituted new S.3(d) for the existing section which limited the
scope of patentability by excluding the mere discovery of a new
form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement
of the known efficacy of that substance.[footnoteRef:15] [15: Ned
Hettinger, Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property,
and Environmental Ethics, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law
Review, Volume 22 Issue 2 Article 4]
More recently, the constitutional validity of S.3 (d) was
subsequently unsuccessfully challenged by global pharmaceutical
giant, Novartis in the Honble High Court of Madras. The overall
expansion of patentability criteria has resulted in an increased
number of patent applications and, consequently, an increase in the
number of patents granted in the field of biotechnology. An
assessment of the annual reports of the Indian patent office (2007
Annual Report) reveals that from 2000-01, where four applications
were submitted and no patents were granted, the number of
applications has been steadily increasing. In 2003-04, 23 patent
applications had been filed, though no patents were granted. During
2004-2005, there was a Phenomenal increase in the number of
applications biotechnology patents were granted in that year alone.
. TRIPS leaves it to member countries to determine appropriate
method of implementing its provisions and define certain key
provisions that determine the scope of patentability. Carlos Correa
argues that there is no obligation under the TRIPS Agreement to
adopt an expansive concept of invention, as is currently done by
many developed countries. In particular, nothing in the Agreement
obliges Members to consider that substances existing in nature,
biological or not, are patentable, even if isolated and claimed in
purified form.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Martin Khor, IPRs and
Biodiversity: Stop the Theft of Indigenous Knowledge,
www.twnside.org.sg/title/jb6.htm]
It is interesting to note that in Novartis AG, in Ritushka Negi
and Anr v Adarsh Pharma and Anr[footnoteRef:17], one of the
contentions raised was how 3(d) was contradictory to Article 27 of
TRIPS, which obligates WTO member states to provide patent
protection to all fields of technology without discrimination, and
therefore violates the obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. But
the court sought jurisdiction issue and did not deal with the
matter. The Honble Courts suggestion to approach the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism was also not followed. But the Court did
reaffirm the provisions constitutional validity with Article 14.
[17: 2004(3)CTC95]
Further stipulation under Article 8 accords adequate discretion
to TRIPS signatories to deny patents in observing and up keeping
interests in ordre` public and morality. And India has forever
stressed, in a stance complimented by Paragraph 4 of the Doha
Declaration, that any interpretation of the provisions of the
agreement should be consistent with Article 8. Another safeguard in
place is the presence of a global depository of genetic data as
mandated under Budapest Treaty and the Convention for
Bio-Diversity. Microbial Type Culture Collection and Gene Bank
(MTCC) at the Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH),
Chandigarh ensures that all micro-biological data is deposited, and
the region of its availability disclosed and kept open to research
and other such uses after the publication of patent
application.[footnoteRef:18] [18: Supra note 17]
The depositories under the human genome process perform a
similar function, for once some information is disclosed or made
public it is no longer new and cannot be patented. To assess
whether after the 2005 amendment India had indeed become TRIPS
compliant and if the measures taken to ensure TRIPS compliance were
in national interest the Mashelkar Committee was set up in April
2005. One of the issues the Committee dealt with was whether it
would be consistent with TRIPS to exclude microorganisms from
patenting. The Mashelkar committee submitted a report in December
2006 which it later withdrew citing technical inaccuracy and
plagiarism as reasons.[footnoteRef:19] [19: Dr Johanna Gibson,
Patenting Lives, Patenting Alternatives Commercializing
Agricultural Biotechnologies in the Developing World, Queen Mary
Intellectual Property Research Institute]
The revised version of the report restates to a large extent the
Committees previous findings, which had been criticized for not
taking into account public health goals. The committee concluded
that it shall be in violation of TRIPS to exclude microorganisms
completely from patentability and that microorganisms involving
human intervention and utility are patentable subject matter under
the TRIPS Agreement, provided they meet the prescribed
patentability criteria. The Committee has also been criticized for
not having taken a policy perspective on the issue. It furthers
patents on bio-tech inventions on three grounds. The first one
being increased prospects of FDI and contract R&D by attracting
foreign collaboration to the ever growing and increasingly
profitable bio-tech industry in a bio-diverse country like India.
India would have an advantage in attracting FDI and other such
projected benefits only so long as other nations do not provide
similar relaxations. It is relevant to note that most countries
with advanced bio-tech fields like, USA, Republic of Korea, Japan,
China and European Countries already provide far wider patent
protection on living matter than India. The second reason cited by
the committee was concern over biological matter of Indian origin
being patented by foreign players. This is a faulty argument as
well. India is already a signatory to the Convention on
Bio-diversity (CBD), according to Article 15 of the CBD when a
material is taken from a country prior informed consent and
material transfer agreements are required to be initiated to
acknowledge the country of origin. It must be Indias prerogative to
uphold the CBD to prevent bio-piracy instead of looking for
alternatives which require India to adopt a system least suited to
its needs. The committee finally seeks to justify its suggestions
by citing obligations under TRIPS. It refuses to realize that there
are flexibilities available within TRIPS like non-definition of
three criteria of patentability (novelty, non-obviousness,
usefulness) which make it possible for India to define
restrictively the scope of patentable subject
matter.[footnoteRef:20] [20: Ibid]
The Future of Patenting Life Forms
Biotechnology is an old technology. The use of living organisms
to make bread, wine, and cheese is a longstanding human practice.
People have "genetically-engineered" plants and animals, including
humans, by selective breeding for desirable characteristics for
thousands of years.The new biotechnologies promise a lot; in some
cases they have already delivered. Medical benefits of
biotechnology include the development of new drugs and enhanced
production of old drugs that combat cancer, A.I.D.S., dwarfism,
diabetes, hepatitis, and even aging. Genetically-altered pigs
produce human hemoglobin that might be used to develop a human
blood substitute. Genetically-altered mice produce an extractable
protein in their milk that dissolves blood clots. Both creatures
exemplify a trend toward turning animals into living drug
factories. The new biotechnologies also make it easier to identify
genetically-caused diseases and permit the replacement of defective
genes. Ultimately, such technology will allow us to choose our
children's genetic makeup. In agriculture, bio-technicians have
altered plants and animals for improved nutritional
value.[footnoteRef:21] [21: Biotechnological inventions: patenting
of genes and life forms, and the impact of patenting on upstream
science, John Sulston, WIPO]
Bio-technicians have produced potatoes with more starch and pigs
with an increased protein-to-fat ratio. Researchers are also
attempting to produce larger, faster growing, and more productive
agricultural animals that require less feed. Bio-technicians are
already altering plants to withstand pests and disease, and they
hope to be able to produce plants that fix their own nitrogen and
resist drought and cold. The first genetically-altered whole
food-product has recently appeared on supermarket shelves in the
form of a tomato that spoils less quickly than unaltered
tomatoes.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Ibid]
These developments raise hopes for an increase in the world's
food supply and a decrease in the use of chemicals in agriculture.
Genetically-altered microbes that eat toxic wastes and degrade
synthetic compounds may be useful in waste treatment. Genetic
technologies can help preserve endangered species. Biotechnology
even provides economic incentives for preservation, as it makes
possible commercial uses of genetic material that previously lacked
economic value. Biotechnologies could lessen human dependence on
other forms of sentient life by providing genetically altered,
insentient life-forms as substitutes. There are notable differences
between contemporary biotechnologies and both past human practice
and what nature does by itself. Recent techniques for genetic
manipulation are much faster and far more precise than is
traditional, whole-organism crossbreeding. Modern bio-technicians
can produce organisms that possess specific desirable
characteristics, while traditional, whole-organism cross breeders
produce organisms with a variety of new traits, many of which are
undesirable and difficult to breed out. While selective breeding
necessarily takes place within a species or closely-related
species, the new biotechnologies permit the combination of genetic
material from significantly different species.[footnoteRef:23] [23:
Danish Board of Technology (2005), Recommendations for a Patent
System of the Future, available
athttp://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=1132&toppic=kategori11&language=uk&category=11]
The technology of animal and human reproduction, as well as the
techniques of genetic manipulation, is progressing so rapidly it
creates situations that transcend our legal structure and directly
affect our social and moral fabrics. It is high time the
legislature takes a serious look at where the science is going,
where it needs to go to make a positive contribution, and perhaps
define the boundaries of our venture into the unknown biological
mysteries of nature. Of course, no mandate will ever cover all
future scientific directions or orient human ingenuity, and the
judiciary will play increasing roles in resolving conflicts
involving human genetic reproduction, genetically manipulated
plants and foods, and environmental restoration. There is thus a
great need to continue dialogues between the judiciary, the legal
community, the legislature, the interested public, and the
scientific community to provide guidance in scientific developments
that may have major impacts on society. In any case, with regard to
the institutional framework, TRIPS still leaves potential scope for
introducing flexibilities considering the indigenous conditions
prevalent in the Indian IP regime. Sensitivity towards interests of
public by heeding adequately to the numerous ethical and public
health issues raised is vital. However, any exhibition of unfound
paranoia must be diametrically denounced and abstained from; so as
to promote scientific knowledge and temperament, as is also a
constitutional (fundamental) duty to which every citizen is
bound.
Bibliography
Richard T. Hull, Ph.D., The Creation and Patenting of New Life
Forms: A New Assault on Academic Freedom?, Given as a University
Honors Lecture Governors Quadrangle, SUNY at Buffalo March 20, 1988
Shelley A. Rowland & James W. Piper, Patents and Biotechnology:
Issues Around the Patenting of Life Forms Ameen Jauhar and Swati
Narnaulia, Patenting Life the American, European and Indian Way
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 15, January 2010, pp
55-65 LOUISM. GUENIN, Patents, Ethics, Human Life forms,
http://guenin.med.harvard.edu/Documents/Ethics%20of%20Patents%20on%20Human%20Life%20Forms.pdf
M. Chakrabarty, Patenting Life Forms: Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow. Patenting of Higher life forms and related issues, Report
to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating
Committee Daniel J. Kevles, A history of patenting life in the
United States with comparative attention to Europe and Canada, 2002
Ned Hettinger, Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual
Property, and Environmental Ethics, Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review, Volume 22 Issue 2 Article 4 Martin Khor, IPRs
and Biodiversity: Stop the Theft of Indigenous Knowledge,
www.twnside.org.sg/title/jb6.htm Dr Johanna Gibson, Patenting
Lives, Patenting Alternatives Commercializing Agricultural
Biotechnologies in the Developing World, Queen Mary Intellectual
Property Research Institute
