Biotechnology patents and ethical aspects

Should we set any limits on patenting? More specifically, must we set any limits on patenting in the field of biotechnology? There should be general agreement on the exclusion of humans from patentability. The European Parliament voted unanimously on an amendment to the Community Directive regarding patenting stating that the human body and its parts are not patentable as such. Patenting of humans indeed would be against fundamental human rights; against the shared principles of freedom, autonomy, and dignity of each single human being. The same reasons apply to requests to reject the "commercialization of the human body." However, much more difficult is reaching a consensus on what are the parts of humans that should not be marketed--organs, tissues, cells, genes, smaller DNA fragments? Probably there is no consensus on where to draw the line when we deal with parts of the human body. Nevertheless, an ethical component is very strong in raising opposition to patenting human DNA. Whatever our personal view on the issue, we cannot deny that ethical aspects must be considered in granting patents on human DNA. With reference to animals, the fears raised are that the patenting of transgenic animals could amplify the instrumental use (reification) and the neglect of their sentient nonobjectual nature: patenting could motivate, instead, the tendency to consider animals as the standard of things invented and as new consumer products. Moreover, animal patenting increases production and thus brings about the great suffering of animals. In regard to plants, the ethical implications of patenting have more to do with their socioeconomic effects, in particular on Third World countries, than for the organisms involved.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)