Abstract
Austin Smith and others argue in
favour of patenting technologies
derived from human embryonic
stem cells (Nature 472, 418;
2011), a case still pending with
the European Court of Justice.
But there is more at stake than
European commercial interests.
In 1998, agreement was
reached in Europe under
Directive 98/44 not to recognize
patents involving the use of
human embryos for commercial
purposes (R. Hipp and P. Liese
Nature 474, 36; 2011).
The court must decide
whether the use of these cells
‘necessitates the prior destruction
of human embryos or their use
as base material’, as the advocategeneral,
Yves Bot, has argued
(see go.nature.com/gsap8n).
If so, such use would seem to
fall beyond the scope of what is
legally patentable.
Smith et al. warn that
“European discoveries could
be translated into applications
elsewhere, at a potential cost
to the European citizen.” This
begs the question of whether
patents, which may also be held
by non-European companies,
may sometimes impede wider
research cooperation (S. Rabin
Nature Biotechnol. 23, 817–819;
2005).
In any case there will often
be some commercial risk
whenever Europe defends a
more rigorous ethical standard
than is defended elsewhere. This
risk is not itself an argument
against upholding the standard
prescribed by law.
Without prejudice to the
final judgment in this case, the
resolution of patent law is and
ought to be more than a question
of European commercial interest.
Lingua originale | English |
---|---|
pagine (da-a) | 579-579 |
Numero di pagine | 1 |
Rivista | Nature |
Volume | 474 |
DOI | |
Stato di pubblicazione | Pubblicato - 2011 |
Keywords
- human embryo
- patent
- stem-cell