The "Humouse" Human-Animal Chimera Patent Challenge

What is a human being? In the past this was areason we denied the case was the examiner
question appropriately contemplated by theologians,believed one or more of the claims encompassed
philosophers and anthropologists. But in thehuman beings. The question which can be raised that
contemporary world of biotechnology, it also haswhether the case will affect future patent
become a topic for consideration by ventureapplications for chimeric lab animals, the answer may
capitalists, patent attorneys and legislators.be that the examiners always decide first if it is
Most members of the latter groups may wish topatentable subject matter and humans aren't.
avoid this uncomfortable, or at least impractical,Anything found in nature is not patentable subject
subject for as long as possible.matter. It has to be new, useful, non-obvious, and
But in collaboration with the social critic Jeremy Rifkin,fully disclosed in writing. Each patent application is
president of the Foundation on Economic Trends inreviewed on its own merits.
Washington, D.C., decided to force the issue byThus it cannot be said that whether the case will
applying for a patent in late 1997 on embryos andaffect future chimera patent applications or not.
animals containing human cells -- so-called "chimeras."Irving L. Weissman, a professor of cancer biology,
"Chimeras" are creatures composed of the cells ofpathology, and developmental biology at Stanford
two genetically different individuals, usually combinedUniversity has created mice with brains that contain
at the embryonic stage. There are rare natural humanabout 1% human tissue. Weissman says recent news
chimeras who are born when the embryonic cells ofreports that he plans to create a mouse with a
fraternal twins combine in the womb to create a100% human brain are "inaccurate." A pioneer in the
single individual. Scientists have also deliberatelyfield of stem cell research, Weissman is credited as
created cross-species chimeras like the "geep," inbeing the first scientist to identify and isolate
which embryonic cells from goats and sheep werehematopoietic stem cells from mice and humans. He
combined. The contemporary view suggests fromsays that the news reports were fueled by an
the Greek meaning "she-goat" the Chimera is aacademic inquiry he made to find out, in theory, what
fire-breathing creature that has the body of a goat,his university ethics panel thought of the idea. He
the head of a lion and the tail of a serpent. Somesays he has no current plans to create such a mouse.
sources have represented the Chimera with threeThe Newman/Rifkin patent is "a new attempt to
heads (the lion's head as the main, then the goat'sblock science," while the "use of human-mouse
head sprouted from its back, and the serpent's orchimeras is old," Weissman says. In 1988, J. Michael
Dragon's head on its tail), but the popular myth tellsMcCune patented the SCID-hu mouse, "a severe
of the single, fire-vomiting head. The very unlikelycombined immunodeficient mouse with human organs,
aspect of the chimera has gradually turned its namebones, lymphoid tissue, thymus, and liver," says
into a synonym of a vain dream.Weissman, who is also director of Stanford's Institute
Leading anti-biotech activist have long opposedof Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine and a
corporations "owning" patents on living organisms (orcofounder of Stem-Cells and other companies. "The
on cells and genes). But do corporations really "own"precedent is there, the discoveries are long published,
genes or animals? What are patents? Patents areand people's lives have been affected by those
temporary monopolies (20 years) granted by thediscoveries. Would they take back all those
government to inventors as a way to encouragediscoveries and be happy if the therapies discovered
them to disclose publicly how their inventions workthrough them were taken away?" Weissman
so that other people will be able to use them.dismisses the Newman/Rifkin case as "typical Rifkin,"
Often reviled by academic researchers, the patentadding that "one example doesn't hold. It doesn't
system is actually an information-disclosure procedureinvalidate the others, so it's a hollow victory. The
that works somewhat like peer-reviewed scientificcase is not the precedent they think."
publication -- that is, the first one to publish gets theChimeric animals, and patents, are crucial to a
credit. Like patents, peer-reviewed research mustbiotech's ability to develop cures for human diseases.
disclose enough information so that other researchersTo protect one's investment, for example, StemCells
can reproduce the experiment. The temporaryhas more than 43 US patents on its stem cell
monopolies created by patents are valuable, whichtechnology, though none are on bioengineered mice.
encourages people to invest in the research andIf the private sector cannot receive a patent on all
development projects of biotech companies.its work and invention, it's unlikely to engage in the
A Question Of Chimeras -- Activists try to patentwork because it takes so much time and effort and
fearmoney. The ability to retain a return on one's
Scientists say ruling on protest patent won't have aninvestment is crucial. Thus it can be inferred that mice
impact on future chimeric-animal patents. Looking toare the backbone of biotechs, pharmaceuticals, and
cure a host of neuro-degenerative diseases,drug development.
Stem-Cells, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based company, hasHowever, adding such complexes of genes to other
transplanted human neural stem cells into the brainscreatures, say mice, would raise no ethical problems.
of thousands of mice. The mice are technicallyWhy? Because mice simply couldn't develop humanlike
chimeras, a mix of two or more species.brains with self-consciousness. And such mice might
Such animals, especially mice, have been used tobe useful for finding treatments for human brain
search for ways to cure human diseases includingdiseases The essential point is that certain types of
Parkinson and Alzheimer disease. The ability tobrains, not genes, have moral standing. Human genes
evaluate human cells in a mouse or other animal isare not sacred, people are.
critical to translating scientific discoveries intoThe yuckiest thing of all would be if the public and
therapeutic medicine, thus the bridge to the clinic.policy makers were frightened by the Frankenstein
However, the use of such chimeric animals is thefantasies peddled by clever activists into slowing
focus of a complicated patent case that is raisingbiomedical progress that could ameliorate the
legal and ethical questions. In this case, opponents tosuffering of millions.
the patenting of living things applied for a chimeraRethinking scientific and legal precedent
patent. The US Patent and Trademark OfficeSince the 1980 Supreme Court decision in it has been
(USPTO) refused to issue a patent for thelegal in the United States to obtain a patent on living
human-animal chimera in the application, on theorganisms and their descendants.
grounds that it would have been too nearly human.Moreover, government has drawn no line that would
In the volatile debate over bioengineered life forms,preclude a pre-term human embryo, if appropriately
many disagree about the ramifications of the recentmodified, from being patented. Nor has it indicated
case. The critics of the biotechnology industry whohow many human genes or cells an animal would
applied for the patent say the case has serioushave to contain before it could not be patented by
business and research implications. But some leadingvirtue of the constitutional protections due to
scientists and industry observers say the case is justmembers of the human community.
another effort to grab attention in a field rife withCan human embryos be patented? The working
more heat than rational discussion. Stuart Newman, ascientist concerned that the fruits of science not be
professor of cell biology and anatomy at New Yorkused to society's detriment, Rifkin's invitation of
Medical College in Valhalla, says he opposes theseveral years ago to invent something novel is
patenting of living things. Newman, working witheagerly accepted, but also so disquieting that it would
Washington, DC, activist Jeremy Rifkin, filed a patentalert the public to the inevitable consequences of the
application in 1997 for a theoretical creature he neverunbridled commercialization of the living world. The
actually made. For "tactical reasons," Newman saysresult was the human-animal chimera, which could
he eventually split his patent application into two: onecontain anything from a minuscule proportion to a
involving primates and the other focused on othermajority of human cells.
animals.This creature is not to be produced (and thus did
Using what he calls the "embryo chimera technique,"not) but simply had to demonstrate its feasibility.
Newman sought to patent a creature combiningBecause it was known that invention was patentable
human embryo cells with cells from the embryo of aunder existing standards and law, it is accepted that
monkey, ape, or other animal to create a blend ofa patent would be issued and then there would have
both. Other scientists have used similar methods tothe option of exercising the right to prevent its
create a "geep" (part goat, part sheep), could beimplementation for the statutory 20 years.
used for drug testing and as a source of organs toIt is anticipated that public indignation at the possibility
transplant into humans. After seven years andthat such part-human, part-animal organisms can be
several rejections and appeals, the USPTO turnedproduced and patented might reasonably lead to a
down both of Newman's patent applications inre-evaluation of the legalities that have made bona
August 2004, saying, among other things, that thisfide commercial ventures of this sort possible.
creatures would be too close to human. Newman andThe new developments are particularly concerned
Rifkin let the six-month appeals period lapse andwith the precedent of the Chakrabarty case, in which
declared victory in February 2005. Both Rifkin andthe Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) opposed
Newman say they expect the ruling to preventthe granting of a patent to Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty
scientists and biotechs from obtaining similar patentsand his employer, General Electric Corp., for an
for 20 years, the time a patent is usually viable. Rifkinoil-eating bacterium.
says crossing species boundaries is a form of animalCourts overruled that decision, ruling, absurdly, that
abuse and a violation of nature and human dignity.bacteria are "more akin to inanimate chemical
"The ruling has significant implications for the futurecompositions ... [than] to horses and honeybees and
of the biotech industry," says Rifkin, president of theraspberries and roses" and, startlingly, that
nonprofit Foundation on Economic Trends, and one ofChakrabarty's microbe was "a human-made invention."
the most vocal critics of biotechnology products suchNotwithstanding the stated distinction, the
as genetically engineered organisms.Chakrabarty decision served as a precedent for the
The implications for commercial interests areissuing of patents on mice, pigs and cows, some
far-reaching. It means anyone applying for a patentcontaining introduced human genes, as well as
for human-animal chimeras ought to be turned down.naturally occurring human bone-marrow cells.
He expects the ruling to affect stem cell researchers,Future Challenges
too. There are people who are producing or whoLegislature has not specifically addressed the question
express their intention to produce mixtures ofof whether the humain beings can be patented or
humans and mice for research purposes in order tonot. Similarly, the court in Chakrabarty did not
test the potential of human stem cells. This decisionaddress whether human beings are patentable
does not block their ability to do that in their labs, butsubject matter." The PTO (Patenr and Trademark
if they wanted to patent and market these mixedOffice) commented that "when there are paramount
human and animal organisms, it would be morepatent issues of first impression, in the absence of
difficult for them to commercialize it. However, someclear legislative intent and guidance from the courts, it
leading stem cell researchers say the case is unlikelyis incumbent on the office to proceed cautiously."
to stop work on chimeric animals.The new circumstances have given an opportunity to
Twenty-five years ago, in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, afinally open up the question of whether or not the
US scientist Ananda Chakrabarty, who worked forPTO's current policy of conferring life patents on
General Electric at the time, obtained the first patentgenes, cells, etc. is legal. With the PTO now saying
on a living organism, a genetically engineeredthat the ranting of certain patents on human cells
bacterium that consumes oil spills. The patent officemay in fact be questionable, the question of the
originally denied the application, believing it could notlegitimacy of life patents becomes an issue of great
patent living organisms, according to Brigid Quinn,public policy concern within the government itself.
USPTO spokesperson. The case landed in the USThe question of whether the human gene pool and
Supreme Court, which held that "anything under thelife itself can be patented is one of the great issues
sun made by man" could be patented as long as it isof the coming century. If the current PTO policy is
"new, non-obvious, and useful."allowed to stand, a handful of global life science
Since then, more than 436 transgenic orcompanies will gain control over the genetic blueprints
bioengineered animals have been patented, includingof millions of years of biological evolution, giving them
362 mice, 26 rats, 19 rabbits, 17 sheep, 24 pigs, twoawesome powers over the biological marketplace of
chickens, 20 cows, three dogs, and many more.the 21st century. These legal challenges are designed
Many say the 1980 ruling led to the birth ofto block and reverse this potential monopoly over
biotechnology in the United States. However, the USthe biology of the planet.
law clearly prohibits the patenting of people. One