Advertisement

Harvard Wins Patent For Mice in Canada

The Dissent

The dissenter, Justice Julius Isaac, argued that higher life forms simply did not fit the Canadian Parliament's intended definition of inventions. He also said that more deference should have been given to the patent commissioner's expert judgement of the application.

Critics of biotechnology in Canada echoed his judgements this week and called the court's opinion hasty and irresponsible.

Advertisement

"There are environmental, health and ethical issues associated with the patenting of biotechnology," said Michelle Swenarchuck, Director of International Programmes at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. "The court never had a full discussion of these issues."

The Environmental Law Association, which argued against Harvard in court as an interested party, is lobbying the government to appeal.

But the association also argues that Parliament, not the courts, is the place where the issue should be considered.

"Courts are the wrong place to decide whether we should be patenting higher life forms," Swenarchuck said. "Our legislatures need to look at the Patent Act and the idea of invention and whether they intend it to cover living creatures."

Until that time, the ruling's critics say, Parliament's original intentions must stand--and in writing the 1869 Patent Act it did not intend that life would be patented.

Recommended Articles

Advertisement