More at stake in stem-cell patents

Austin Smith and others argue in\r\nfavour of patenting technologies\r\nderived from human embryonic\r\nstem cells (Nature 472, 418;\r\n2011), a case still pending with\r\nthe European Court of Justice.\r\nBut there is more at stake than\r\nEuropean commercial interests.\r\nIn 1998, agreement was\r\nreached in Europe under\r\nDirective 98/44 not to recognize\r\npatents involving the use of\r\nhuman embryos for commercial\r\npurposes (R. Hipp and P. Liese\r\nNature 474, 36; 2011).\r\nThe court must decide\r\nwhether the use of these cells\r\n‘necessitates the prior destruction\r\nof human embryos or their use\r\nas base material’, as the advocategeneral,\r\nYves Bot, has argued\r\n(see go.nature.com/gsap8n).\r\nIf so, such use would seem to\r\nfall beyond the scope of what is\r\nlegally patentable.\r\nSmith et al. warn that\r\n“European discoveries could\r\nbe translated into applications\r\nelsewhere, at a potential cost\r\nto the European citizen.” This\r\nbegs the question of whether\r\npatents, which may also be held\r\nby non-European companies,\r\nmay sometimes impede wider\r\nresearch cooperation (S. Rabin\r\nNature Biotechnol. 23, 817–819;\r\n2005).\r\nIn any case there will often\r\nbe some commercial risk\r\nwhenever Europe defends a\r\nmore rigorous ethical standard\r\nthan is defended elsewhere. This\r\nrisk is not itself an argument\r\nagainst upholding the standard\r\nprescribed by law.\r\nWithout prejudice to the\r\nfinal judgment in this case, the\r\nresolution of patent law is and\r\nought to be more than a question\r\nof European commercial interest.