Patenting life : an examination of some ethical implications of biopatents

Patenting living organisms, including animals, human genes, cells, cell lines and body parts has become a major area of contention in the development of biotechnology at the threshold of a new millennium. The expansion of commercial biotechnology and the application of the machine metaphor in biology represents a paradigm shift opening the door for revaluation of biological materials. Competition in biotechnology led to the perceived need for intellectual property protection for the biotechnology industry. The patent system was a readily available mechanism for such protection. Patents grant a limited, exclusive property right (monopoly) in their subject matter. Intellectual property rights in biological materials are defended typically through backward-looking arguments (ala John Locke) or forward-looking arguments (ala consequentialism). Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Exparte Allen are watershed events leading the United States Patent and Trademark Office to judge that "anything under the sun made by man" is patentable. Nevertheless, composition of matter patents entail a form of commodification of animal and human biological materials by rendering those materials commensurate exclusively with market values. The socially-based, idealistic, pluralistic theory of value proposed accounts for the rich and diverse ways we value animals, animal species, human beings, and human body parts. The application of this theory of value leads to the conclusion that these biological materials should not be subject to composition of matter patents.