Biotechnicians alter, modify, assist, and manipulate nature. They are not inventors of novel organisms or genes that could be appropriate objects for patents. In truth, the patent on the Harvard mouse constitutes a monopoly on an entire subclass of animal. Since there are about forty known cancer-causing genes, the patent covers an indordinately wide variety of potentially patentable mammalian life. While animal ownership per se is morally acceptable, patenting animals represents an abuse of the notion of ownership, and more importantly, of ownership rights.
Patents presently protect the ownership rights of the patent holder.
Changes in U.S. patent law were recently made under a new set of international trade rules, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Since animals are patentable, biotech companies, universities, or individuals may monopolize entire species or subclasses of animals and, as in the Chakrabarty decision, bacteria, for twenty years. Admittedly, bacteria are far away from mules. But the principles are invoked, the reasoning, and the stance toward nature go all the way to mules, and beyond. The issuing of patents begs these questions or ignores them.