Patenting human beings: do sub-human creatures deserve constitutional protection?

Area of Science:

• Biotechnology Law
• Bioethics
• Intellectual Property Law

Background:

• The patenting of genetically altered animals raises ethical and legal questions regarding the patentability of human beings.
• Advancements in genetic research are creating organisms that blur the lines between "animal" and "human."

Purpose of the Study:

• To address the legal ambiguity surrounding the patentability of human beings and related entities.
• To propose a definition of "human being" to amend the Patent Act and clarify the legal status of novel biological entities.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of existing patent law, specifically the 1988 revision of the Patent Act.
• Examination of the legal implications of genetically modified organisms.
• Proposal of a legislative definition for "human being" as an amendment to the Patent Act.

Main Results:

• Congress amended the Patent Act in 1988 to exclude human beings from patentability.
• The Act lacks a clear definition of "human being," creating legal uncertainty for borderline entities.

Conclusions:

• A precise definition of "human being" is necessary to resolve the patentability status of genetically engineered creatures.
• The proposed amendment aims to provide legal clarity and address the ethical considerations arising from biotechnology advancements.