Building a Better Mouse

The U.S. Patent Office has made the right decision in granting a patent for a genetically engineered mouse, the first animal ever patented. The action is consistent with the history of patent decisions in this area and with proper and informed public policy. The mouse, which was invented by scientists at Harvard University, will be an aid to cancer research. Of course the government should assist such work.

In objecting to the patent, some members of Congress and other well-intentioned critics worry about the propriety and morality of granting a patent on a new form of life. The Harvard mouse is the first “higher organism” for which a patent has been granted, though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that a patent could be granted to a new microorganism. The court said that living things could be patented.

But the fears over genetic engineering, which were appropriate at the start of this technology nearly two decades ago, have not entirely abated, although there is no evidence that there is anything to fear. People talk about the dangers of creating new forms of life, but there is no reason to suspect that the genetic invention of a mouse that is likely to get cancer has anything to do with the genetic experiments of science-fiction stories. This is serious and important biomedical research, not the work of mad scientists.

The co-inventor of the mouse, Dr. Philip Leder, a Harvard geneticist, is a dedicated cancer researcher who is trying to understand the role of genes in the development of cancer. His work should be applauded and encouraged.

The patent office has before it 21 other applications for patents on genetically engineered animals. If they meet the other criteria for patentability, patents should be granted for them as well. Congress should not succumb to groundless fears and interfere with these patents.