A 1980 Supreme Court ruling allowing for patents for genetically altered microorganisms has been interpreted as clearing the way for legal licenses of all new types of life forms, excluding humans. In the last eight years, the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology has outpaced congressional legislation defining the scope of the ruling.

"We've been slow in picking up on these issues," Mendelsohn says. "Congress has been lazy. The scientific community has been less than fully thoughtful and less than fully candid."

"Because of the environmental and ethical impact of creating genetically altered animals for commercial exploitation, at least a two-year moratorium on the patents is advisable," says Leah D.T. Zuch, director of the Cambridge Committee for Responsible Research, an animal advocacy organization.

Robert Weissman '88-89, director of Harvard Watch, founded last year under the auspices of Ralph Nader to critique University policy in a variety of areas, says Harvard's decision to give marketing rights to DuPont Chemicals is in opposition to its stated policies in favor of the free flow of scientific information. DuPont provided the bulk of the funding for the Med School's mouse project.

"The patent does absolutely nothing to further research," Weissman says. "All that this can do is to decrease the flow of research communication between labs."

"They [officials in the patent office] chose [to give the patent] because it involved Harvard, Dupont and cancer research, and they thought it was the best way to legitimize this," Weissman says.