Ownership of such a patent could be seen as violating the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits slavery. But the applicants argue that their claims are not so different from those made in thousands of other patents that use human materials. If his patent isn't valid, claims Rifkin, neither are thousands of others that underpin the emerging field of molecular medicine. ACT's project, which aims to grow cloned cells and tissues for transplant, continues to make headlines around the world-with some commentators alarmed about the project's perceived assault on the unique identity of the human species. To pursue their argument, Rifkin and Newman are appealing against the patent office's decision, and hope eventually to obtain a definitive ruling on the patent's legality from the US Supreme Court.
Legal experts are divided.
John Barton of Stanford University School of Law in California says the patent illustrates that there is no legal definition stating how much human material an organism must contain before it is considered human. But Rebecca Eisenberg, a patent expert at the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, argues that patents are supposed to foster innovation, rather than being used to make wider legal and political points.