Rather, the decision should be made by legislative review, after a full public debate of all the implications. If Parliament did consider the issue,' adds Swenarchuck, 'it could then decide whether there should be safeguards such as ethcial and environmental reviews, other public protections for food security and the protection of animals, the appointment of a body of ethical advisors or involvement of the public in decisions made by the Patent Office. Like the other copyrighted mouse, Mickey, the oncomouse, also serves corporate interests. Although the patent is owned by Harvard Medical School, an earlier commercialization arrangement leaves DuPont, a multinational Gene Giant, not Harvard, entitled to exclusive license of the patent. DuPont has claimed patent protection on any anticancer product ever derived from the mice.
Animals can now have their genetic makeup altered to serve as a tool for corporate profit.
They are no longer animals, but machines that are described as human inventions. This so-called invention is the ultimate 'better mouse trap,'' said Delahanty. Allowing patents to be applied to engineered animals means that corporate interests can also impose the same kinds of conditions on livestock farming as they have on plant agriculture elsewhere. There are currently approximately 250 applications pending in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office dealing with animal patents that have been on hold awaiting this decision. In Canada, one need not leave all to the imagination.