Three of four panelists at the Kennedy School Forum last night criticized the June Supreme Court decision to grant a patent for a genetically-modified organism.

Speaking before an audience of about 200, Jonathan King, professor of Biology at MIT, said life forms should be removed from the realm of patents because patenting "inhibits the flow of information," alters the ecosystem in a "potentially dangerous" way, and threatens to make "human genes the property of individuals or corporations."

The court will find it difficult to differentiate between higher and lower organisms now that it has found no difference between living and non-living organisms in the realm of patents, King added.

Paul M. Doty, professor of Biology, said the Supreme Court decision was a "rigged proposition" because it was based on past legislation which was "inadequate."

Data Demming, a spokesman for the National Council of Chruches, said the hundreds of churches represented by the council believe DNA research may be valuable but "fear the misapplication of technology."

Doty said Harvard's consideration of commercial involvement in recombinant DNA research is "symptomatic of a wider movement" influenced by declining university funds, increased faculty dependence on outside sources to supplement falling income, and the desire for rapid transfer of research to industrial applications.

Although he initially "favored an experiment of limited duration," Doty said the faults in Harvard's present proposal, which was rejected by the Harvard Corporation yesterday, clearly outweigh the benfits.