Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:02:30.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DNA Patents and Human Dignity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

David B. Resnik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Those objecting to human DNA patenting frequently do so on the grounds that the practice violates or threatens human dignity. For example, from 1993 to 1994, more than thirty organizations representing indigenous peoples approved formal declarations objecting to the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) bid to patent viral DNA taken from subjects in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Although these were not patents on human DNA, the organizations argued that the patents could harm and exploit indigenous peoples and violate their cultural values. NIH eventually dropped one of its patent applications.

On May 18, 1995, 180 religious leaders, led by biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, held a press conference objecting to DNA patenting in Washington, D.C. In their “Joint Appeal against Human and Animal Patenting,” these leaders decried any attempt to patent nature. Some of the more outspoken members of the Joint Appeal likened DNA patenting to slavery, while others objected to treating human beings as marketable commodities. In his recent book, The Biotech Century, Rifkin rehashed the objections to DNA patenting voiced by members of the Joint Appeal.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , Summer 2001 , pp. 152 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

In this essay, I will use the phrase “human DNA patenting” instead of the more popular phrase “human gene patenting” because the more popular idiom is misleading. The patents that have been approved by patent offices do not mention “human genes,” but usually describe “isolated and purified DNA sequences.” This is not a trivial point: A gene is a functional unit that carries the information needed to make a protein, which includes DNA that codes for the primary structure of the protein (the coding region) as well as DNA that regulates translation and transcription of the coding region. Moreover, some DNA sequences, such as genetic markers, are much smaller than genes. Some patents, such as patents on expressed sequence tags (ESTs), apply to genetic markers. See Wong, D., The ABCs of Gene Cloning (New York: Chapman and Hall, 1997). I would also like to point out that the notion of “human” DNA is a bit ambiguous since human beings share a large percentage of their DNA with chimpanzees, a slightly lesser percentage with pigs, and a still fair percentage with yeast. To make sense of this biological fact, by “human” DNA, I mean “DNA that is a part of a genome of a member of the species Homo sapiens.” Although much of the DNA in human DNA is structurally similar to DNA that occurs in non-human species, DNA is “human” by virtue of its functional role in a human genome. By way of comparison, the same automotive part, such as a fan belt, may be present in many different vehicles, but a fan belt is a Ford Ranger fan belt by virtue of its functional role (turning the fan) in a Ford Ranger truck. See Resnik, D., “The Morality of Human Gene Patents,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7, no. 1 (1997): 43–61.Google Scholar
Resnik, D., “The Human Genome Project: Ethical Problems and Solutions,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 18, no. 1 (1999): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joint Appeal Against Human and Animal Patenting, Press Conference Text (Washington, D.C.: Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, May, 16, 1995).Google Scholar
Rifkin, J., The Biotech Century (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998).Google Scholar
European Commission, Opinions of the Group of Advisors on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology of the European Commission (Brussels: European Commission, 1996).Google Scholar
Knoppers, M., “Status, Sale, and Patenting of Human Genetic Material: An International Survey,” Nature Genetics, 22 (1999): 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespi, R., “An Analysis of Moral Issues Affecting Patenting Inventions in the Life Sciences: A European Perspective,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 6, no. 2 (2000): 157–80.Google Scholar
Council for Responsible Genetics, The Genetic Bill of Rights (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Council for Responsible Genetics, 2000).Google Scholar
Nader, R., Nader 2000 (visited November 6, 2000) <http://www.votenader.org/issues/agriculture_policy.html>..>Google Scholar
Evans, J., “The Uneven Playing Field in the Dialogue on Patenting,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998): At 57–74.Google Scholar
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (1787).Google Scholar
Patent and Trademark Office, General Information Concerning Patents (Washington, D.C.: Patent and Trademark Office, 1999).Google Scholar
Foster, F. and Shook, R., Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, 2d ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1993).Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar
Foster, and Shook, supra note 13.Google Scholar
Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 12.Google Scholar
Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 12.Google Scholar
Foster, and Shook, supra note 13.Google Scholar
Doll, J., “The Patenting of DNA,” Science, 280 (1998):689–90.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar
Einsenberg, R., “Patenting the Human Genome,” Emory Law Journal, 39 (1990): 721–45; Eisenberg, R., “Patenting Organisms,” Encyclopedia of Bioethics, rev. ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995): At 1911–14.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, R., “Structure and Function in Gene Patenting,” Nature Genetics, 15, no. 2 (1997): 125–30.Google Scholar
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, Primer: Genetic Research, Patent Protection and 21st Century Medicine (Washington, D.C.: Biotechnology Industry Organization, 2000).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, supra note 22.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M., “DNA Patents: Making Ends Meet,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association of the Advancement of Science, 1999): At 245–68.Google Scholar
Wong, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Attwood, T., “The Babel of Bioinformatics,” Science, 290 (2000): 471–73.Google Scholar
Doll, supra note 19.Google Scholar
Merz, J. et al., “Disease Gene Patenting Is Bad Innovation,” Molecular Diagnosis, 2, no. 4 (1997): 299–304.Google Scholar
Resnik, D., “DNA Patents and Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Assessing Benefits and Risks,” Science and Engineering Ethics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Land, R. and Mitchell, B., “Patenting Life: No,” First Things, 63, (May 1997): 20–22.Google Scholar
Frankena, W., Ethics, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Patton, H. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1953).Google Scholar
Hill, T., Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant's Moral Theory (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992); Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Steinbock, B., Life Before Birth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Ganeri, A., Religions Explained (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997).Google Scholar
Peters, T., Playing God (New York: Routledge, 1997).Google Scholar
Brunner, E., The Divine Imperative (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947).Google Scholar
Gold, E., Body Parts (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Radin, M., Contested Commodities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Hanson, M., “Biotechnology and Commodification within Health Care,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24, no. 3 (1999):267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, supra note 40.Google Scholar
Hanson, M., “Religious Voices in Biotechnology: The Case of Gene Patenting,” Hastings Center Report, 27, no. 6, special supplement (1997): 1–21.Google Scholar
Berger, F., “Pornography, Sex, and Censorship,” Social Theory and Practice, 4, no. 2 (1997): 380–95.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Social Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973).Google Scholar
Radin, supra note 40.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, Patenting the Human Genome (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1997).Google Scholar
Doll, J., personal communication, September 1, 2000.Google Scholar
Hanson, supra note 43.Google Scholar
Resnik, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar
Gibbons, A., “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?,” Science, 281 (1998): 1432–34.Google Scholar
Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar
Council and Ethical and Judicial Affairs, supra note 47.Google Scholar
Brody, B., “Protecting Human Dignity and the Patenting of Human Genes,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association of the Advancement of Science, 1999): At 111–26.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S., The DNA Mystique (New York: Free Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Land, , Mitchell, supra note 31.Google Scholar
Peters, supra note 37.Google Scholar
Brody, supra note 55.Google Scholar
Friedman, T., “Overcoming the Obstacles to Gene Therapy,” Scientific American, 276, no. 6 (1997): 66–101.Google Scholar
Brody, supra note 55.Google Scholar
European Commission, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Resnik, D., Steinkraus, H., and Langer, P., Human Germline Gene Therapy (Austin, Texas: R.G. Landes, 1999).Google Scholar
Brody, supra note 55.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D., Andrews, L., “Homo Economicus: The Commercialization of Body Tissue in the Age of Biotechnology,” Hastings Center Report, 28, no. 5 (1998): 30–39.Google Scholar
Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar
Radin, supra note 40; Nelkin, , Andrews, supra note 65; Gold, supra note 39; Hanson, supra note 41.Google Scholar
Nelkin, and Andrews, supra note 65.Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
Hanson, supra note 41.Google Scholar
Feinberg, supra note 45.Google Scholar
Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar
Andrews, L., “Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists,” Law, Medicine, & Healthcare, 16, no. 1 (1988):72–80.Google Scholar
Anderson, E., “Is Women's Labor a Commodity?,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, no. 1 (1990): 71–92.Google Scholar
Robertson, J., Children of Choice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Resnik, D., “Regulating the Market for Human Eggs,” Bioethics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Hanson, supra note 43; Evans, J., “The Uneven Playing Field of the Dialogue on Patenting,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1999): At 57–74.Google Scholar
Marshall, E., “Legal Fights over Patents on Life,” Science, 294 (1999): 2067–68.Google Scholar