A "New York Times" reporter notes, "But unlike some other patents on animal cloning, this one does not specifically exclude human from the definition of mammals; indeed, it specifically mentions the use of human eggs" (Pollack). Another writer notes that there are virtually no limits on what a patent can be issued for, and so, the patent office can potentially issue patents on any number of controversial or ethical procedures and creations. He writes, "Under this approach, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or the Agency) issues patents on 'anything under the sun made by man'" (Bagley). Clearly, this policy can lead to muddy waters and questions of morality in the future. Most people agree that human cloning should not occur for any number of reasons, including the ability to create humans and even "perfect" humans to serve as workers or in effect "slaves." This is a moral and ethical question that should not be decided by the patent office, but by lawmakers in the United States. There has been much debate in Congress over human cloning, and the accepted practice is that it should not occur. However, the Patent office is leaving enough doors open that it could occur in the future, under auspices of the U.S. Patent Office, which has approved at least one patent that could ultimately lead to human cloning.
Of course, there are those that support human cloning, because there are so many possibilities for creating cures for many of the world's deadliest diseases, including cancer and many forms of other deadly and debilitating diseases, such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's. Human cloning, or at least stem cell research, could help discover cures, or even clone new organs and body parts to help people live longer, happier lives, and that is why at least some people support the idea of human cloning and/or stem cell research. However, the ethics of these practices are an issue for just about everyone. When is it ethical to create another life by artificial means, and what are the implications of creating that life? Those...
The complexities of the argument become clearer when considering the case of "Trevor," a young boy suffering from a rare genetic disorder. Scientists attempted to create an embryonic clone of the boy, hoping to harvest stem cells that they could inject into the boy and halt the disease. Writer Bagley continues, "Theoretically, the development of such an embryo, made with one of the boy's skin cells and a donated human egg, could yield embryonic stem cells which, when injected back into the boy, might halt and reverse the disorder" (Bagley). This type of cloning is called "therapeutic cloning," and it is clear that it could have vast health ramifications and could improve the lives of millions of people around the world.
In conclusion, patenting of living things is possible and does occur on a regular basis. Since the 1980s, when the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, whether this type of patenting is right or wrong is not the issue with the U.S. Patent Office. Instead, it simply sees the need to patent procedures and inventions that could someday change the face of the world we live in. Patenting living things should come under strict guidelines, and some patents for living things should not be issued at all. The Patent office should have guidelines that severely restrict the issuing of patents on living things, because living things, especially humans, should never become a commodity.
References
Bagley, Margo a. "Patent First, Ask Questions Later: Morality and Biotechnology in Patent Law." William and Mary Law Review 45.2 (2003): 469+.
Editors. "Can Living Things be Patented?" Bio.org. 2008. 15 Feb. 2008. http://www.bio.org/ip/primer/livingthings.asp
Kevles, Daniel J. "Of Mice & Money: The Story of the World's First Animal Patent." Daedalus 131.2 (2002): 78+.
Pollack, Andrew. "Debate on Human Cloning Turns to Patents." New York Times. 2002. 15 Feb. 2008.
