A rchive Date
[ 17-02-2005 ]
Category
[ Science ]
sub-Categoy
[ Biotechnology ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/richardson.html
Harvard's 'onco-mice' a sickening prospect
By MARK RICHARDSON - For the London Free Press
May 29, 2002
The bard of Scotland never had this in mind.
When Robbie Burns waxed poetic "Wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie; O, what a panic's in thy breastie!" he was expressing sorrow to a mouse over how "man's dominion" had "broken Nature's social union."
Today, the poet would be even more distressed. His mouse would probably not just have a panic in his breast but, also, thanks to deliberate human intervention, cancer.
This week, the Supreme Court of Canada has been trying to decide whether to grant Harvard University a patent over so-called "onco-mice," mice with genes manipulated to make them susceptible to developing cancer. As a result, the mice are potential gold mines for medical research. Not to mention drug companies.
To create a cancer-prone mouse, researchers inject an 'oncogene' - a gene that makes a mouse susceptible to cancer - into a carrier known as a "plasmid." The plasmid is then injected into a fertilized egg while still in a one-cell zygote stage. The injected egg is then transferred into a female host mouse and allowed to develop.
If that makes you squeamish, too bad. Section 2 of the Patent Act says an "invention" consists of "any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter" and patent lawyers say the Harvard mouse is just that, a composition of matter.
One Toronto lawyer, for example, felt the Federal Court of Appeal's decision ordering the patent to be given to Harvard researchers was "a victory of logic and reason over the visceral fear of the new technologies."
Still woozy? The Federal Court of Appeal said, provided inventiveness or ingenuity is involved, "the use of the laws of nature by inventors does not disqualify a product from being an invention."
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Canadian Intellectual Property Office tried to quiet any concerns by joking "it's only a mouse."
According to one national newspaper, even Supreme Court justices seem to be echoing the view of the lawyer for Harvard: that is, since a mouse is really no different from a single cell organism, it, too, should be subject to patent.
One Supreme Court justice said last week "Surely you can't differentiate between the cell and the animal it becomes . . . a mammal is the cell writ large." Another justice agreed, adding "Cutting off at simple life forms (is) an unruly measure for interpreting the statute."
So, should everything be turned into a commodity and subject to patent? Not in my book.
Call it a visceral reaction, but treating living creatures as mere things makes me sick. In fact, I think for most of us, the judges and lawyers have missed something that is, well, patently obvious. Canadians in general know what separates the Harvard mouse from an invention or a mere "composition of matter" is its ability to feel and grow.
No widget experiences pain. No engine develops on its own. As I type this, I am sitting next to an eight-year-old schnauzer who needs frequent reassurance, thanks to a bulldozer on our road causing the house to rattle and shake. Does a VCR ever need a hug?
The distinction between higher and lower forms of life may be what patent lawyers call "arbitrary," but who thinks life should be commercialized in the first place? If the logic behind patent law is flawed, let's limit the act to protect all forms of life - even single cell organisms - not expand it to threaten even higher animals.
I found it hard this week to avoid the despair Robbie Burns felt as he contemplated his wee friend. In the last verse of To a Mouse, he mused:
Still, thou art blest compar'd wi' me!
Only the present toucheth thee.
But Och! I backward cast my e'e
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna' see
I guess an' fear!"
Genetic research has tremendous potential and it is hard to argue against medicine, but not all means are justified.
As one canny Scot put it: the best laid schemes of mice and men go oft astray.
Mark Richardson is a London freelance writer. His column appears Wednesdays. Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@lfpress.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|