Greenpeace derails Stem Cell Research

[SpaceMarine93]

From BBC:

Europe's highest court says stem cells from human embryos cannot be patented, in a case that could have implications for medical research.

Scientists say the Court of Justice decision may impede European research into the use of stem cell therapies, or drive research abroad.

Others have welcomed the news, calling it a victory for human dignity.

The ruling follows a challenge by Greenpeace over a patent for nerve cells from embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to turn into any tissue in the body.

They offer the hope of one day being able to treat diseases such as Parkinson's, stroke, heart disease and diabetes, if technical hurdles can be overcome.

The case concerns a method invented by a German professor, Oliver Bruestle, for converting human embryonic stem cells into nerve cells.

The court's decision had been seen by some scientists as critical for research into the use of stem cells as treatments for a range of diseases.

The European Court of Justice said in a statement: "The use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it is patentable.

"But their use for purposes of scientific research is not patentable."

It added: "A process which involves removal of a stem cell from a human embryo at the blastocyst [early embryo] stage, entailing the destruction of that embryo, cannot be patented."

Continue reading the main story
Analysis


Fergus Walsh
Medical correspondent, BBC News
To date there have been just two human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells - the first in Europe was announced a few weeks ago. There are, by contrast, many successful therapies using adult stem cells derived from the patient themselves. But stem cell researchers fear the ruling could damage this whole field of research and drive much of it abroad - to America and Asia. Patents are important if pharmaceutical companies are to recoup their investment in clinical trials and turn a profit. Lawyers are already suggesting there may be a way round the ruling, by patenting the therapeutic process rather than the stem cells themselves.

Prof Pete Coffey of the Institute of Ophthalmology in London, who is researching the use of stem cell treatments for blindness, said the decision was "devastating".

He told the BBC: "This could really halt the progress of stem cell therapies for as yet untreatable diseases."

Prof Coffey is among several leading UK scientists who wrote a letter expressing concern over an earlier recommendation by the advocate-general of the court.

Scientists were concerned that the ruling would threaten the future of medical research, saying companies in Europe would be less likely to invest in research to develop therapies using embryonic stem cells.

But Greenpeace in Germany, which triggered the case, argued it was unethical to issue a patent based on cells from a human embryo.

Greenpeace says it is not opposed to stem cell research itself, but to the idea that patents can be granted for scientific discoveries as opposed to inventions.

The court ruled in the group's favour.

Peter Liese, of the EPP Christian Democrat group at the European Parliament, welcomed the court's ruling.

He said: "We are in favour of research and development in biotechnology, but human beings must not be destroyed, not even in the early stages of their development."

The German Bishops' Conference, part of the Catholic Church, called the ruling a "victory for human dignity," and said it strengthened its view that a human being begins life at the moment of conception.

'Ridiculous'
Commenting on the decision, Prof Austin Smith of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research, University of Cambridge, said: "This unfortunate decision by the court leaves scientists in a ridiculous position.

Continue reading the main story
Stem cells

Stem cells are found in the embryo, the foetus, placenta, umbilical cord, and in many different tissues of the body
There are three types: tissue (adult) stem cells, embryonic stem cells and engineered pluripotent stem cells
Stem cells can be used to study development and disease, and have a host of potential medical applications, although there are many technical hurdles
"We are funded to do research for the public good, yet prevented from taking our discoveries to the marketplace where they could be developed into new medicines.

"One consequence is that the benefits of our research will be reaped in America and Asia."

Prof Bruestle, of Bonn University, who was initially awarded the patent, said: "With this unfortunate decision, the fruits of years of translational research by European scientists will be wiped away and left to the non-European countries.

"European researchers may conduct basic research, which is then implemented elsewhere in medical procedures, which will eventually be reimported to Europe. How do I explain this to my students?"

Yeah, and how is this teacher going to explain the fact that now the entire western world can't do any more to help patients who are crippled, brain damaged, have cancer, baldness, deafness, blindness, infertility, etc.?

This is utterly ridiculous. We get stem cells from women who willingly aborted their fetuses. We can clone stem cells from ones that already exist. There are millions of patients who need this treatment. MILLIONS OF PATIENTS. And these guys are going to ruin their lives further. Nice job breaking it, Greenpeace.

[Exonerate]

You're the ridiculous one. All the ruling is saying is that you can't patent basic science research, which is perfectly in line with precedent. And nor should you be able to. You can still patent the medical techniques, just not the actual cells, so rest assured, companies will still have their profit motivation.

And apparently America isn't included in "the entire western world" now.

[NoXion]

Indeed. I would have thought that it's actually bullshit like the patenting of our common biological heritage that slows down research. Frankly the idea that one can patent natural elements of biology is one that should be smacked down every time it comes up. Scientific research shouldn't be stymied by this kind of crap - "well we would work on this potentially life-saving new biomedical technique but we can't afford to pay the piss artist who patented the very cells we need to work on".

Greenpeace have some frankly fucking stupid positions but I will have to say that this is not one of them. We should be able to advance medicine and biology, fields which benefit everyone, without the disgustingly rank profiteering which is way too fucking common these days.

[Starglider]

Researchers or rather their supporting legal teams always over-reach when applying for patents. Obviously you want to lock down the competition as much as possible and extract as much money as possible, why would you ever apply for less than the widest scope of patent you can? It is the job of patent offices and courts to cut this scope down to something reasonable, a task they are often fail at, but in this case the system seems to be working correctly.

[Shroom Man 777]

Did SpessMareenNumbers actually read the article before going "lol greenpeace"?

I'd have reservations over corporations patenting all sorts of things. Corps patenting scientific research actually means they're going to claim XYZ research methodology as theirs so if any independent or non-corporate or different lab wants to do the XYZ method, they'd have to pay ABC corporation monies, rite?

So, if you put a different spin on it, Greenpeace or Europe or whatever actually prevented the corporations from monopolizing or "owning" certain scientific methods, and actually protected the rights of non-corporate or non-rich laboratories to do these same research things without having to pay greedy ass corporations that wanted to patent them?

The corporate spinning of the news, and how people lapped it up while going "lol greenpeace", is tasteable.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We get stem cells from women who willingly aborted their fetuses.

No. We do not. We get them from banks of cryo-storage tanks full of unimplanted embryos. No abortion ever occurs.

Yeah, and how is this teacher going to explain the fact that now the entire western world can't do any more to help patients who are crippled, brain damaged, have cancer, baldness, deafness, blindness, infertility, etc.?

did you read your own fucking article?

The European Court of Justice said in a statement: "The use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it is patentable.

There are some things in research which can be patented. Genetically modified organisms are a human creation, because we insert a specific gene sequence or create a specific genetic knockout inside an organism. That specific modification is a human creation and can be patented, but only with respect to the mouse, you cannot for example patent a genetic sequence by itself. The specific protocol used can even be patented but not the theoretical knowledge of how to go about doing it . This is why the original PCR protocol is patented, but why there are also other protocols which someone can modify to the whims of their desire and their research needs.

This is why the Oncomouse could be patented, but why that same patent does not also apply to Other lines of cancer-prone mice which might be produced.

This patent application is problematic because the patent in question attempts to patent a cell line that was induced to become nerve cells mimicking a process that occurs naturally (the creation of a knockout mouse is anything but natural). You cannot patent that. You can patent the exact protocol, but see the PCR example (which by the by, does not stop companies from turning a profit by selling the equipment and protocol kits). Now, the theraputic processes developed from them are explicitly patentable. So, once you have a treatment for alzheimers, you can in fact patent the protocol used in that treatment, but it will not stop competitors from developing their own distinct treatment protocol.

[sciguy]

This is not about patenting basic scientific research, or patenting things found in nature, or any of the other stuff that people here have been going on about.

The European court ruled that you can't get a patent on artificial materials that require the destruction of a human embryo to create, or on a process that requires the use of material derived from the destruction of a human embryo. This includes patents on methods for treating diseases and embryo-derived artificial materials used to treat diseases. In fact, the patent in question in the case was a patent on a method for treating Parkinson's disease using human embryonic stem cells. The reasoning behind this ruling is basically "Oh noez, you're KILLING a HUMAN BEING when you extract stem cells from a human embryo!!!! Won't someone please THINK OF THE EMBRYOS!!!!" That is what the researches are complaining about.

The BBC article is terrible. Here is a much better article: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story. ... getsession

[Molyneux]

This is not about patenting basic scientific research, or patenting things found in nature, or any of the other stuff that people here have been going on about.

The European court ruled that you can't get a patent on artificial materials that require the destruction of a human embryo to create, or on a process that requires the use of material derived from the destruction of a human embryo. This includes patents on methods for treating diseases and embryo-derived artificial materials used to treat diseases. In fact, the patent in question in the case was a patent on a method for treating Parkinson's disease using human embryonic stem cells. The reasoning behind this ruling is basically "Oh noez, you're KILLING a HUMAN BEING when you extract stem cells from a human embryo!!!! Won't someone please THINK OF THE EMBRYOS!!!!" That is what the researches are complaining about.

The BBC article is terrible. Here is a much better article: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story. ... getsession

I think that what they may be worried about is someone, say, modifying a human embryo, getting a patent on it, then bringing that embryo to term so you wind up with a living being who's got a patent on them. Or something.

Honestly, that article seems nearly as confused as the BBC one.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The European court ruled that you can't get a patent on artificial materials that require the destruction of a human embryo to create, or on a process that requires the use of material derived from the destruction of a human embryo.

This is the wonderful thing about patenting a protocol. You dont have to specify what organism or cell lines you are using. The patents for PCR protocols certainly do not.

[sciguy]

I think that what they may be worried about is someone, say, modifying a human embryo, getting a patent on it, then bringing that embryo to term so you wind up with a living being who's got a patent on them.

No, humans are already expressly not patentable (even if they have been modified in some inventive way). This was about methods for treating diseases that use material derived from human embryos, and the materials themselves. Such methods are (apparently) no longer considered patentable EU, which means no company is likely to be very interested in funding such research.

[sciguy]

did you read your own fucking article?

The European Court of Justice said in a statement: "The use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it is patentable.

Go re-read the sentence you quoted. Such uses for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes are only patentable if they are 1) applied the embryo and 2) useful to it. It's saying that you can still patent methods for diagnosing an treating problems that the embryo has, e.g. screening an embryo for some particular medical problem and correcting it. You can't patent the use of the embryo to treat someone else.

[Alyrium Denryle]

did you read your own fucking article?

The European Court of Justice said in a statement: "The use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it is patentable.

Go re-read the sentence you quoted. Such uses for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes are only patentable if they are 1) applied the embryo and 2) useful to it. It's saying that you can still patent methods for diagnosing an treating problems that the embryo has, e.g. screening an embryo for some particular medical problem and correcting it. You can't patent the use of the embryo to treat someone else.

Fair enough. But again, protocols are not covered under this restriction. The patent application was to patent the cell lines. It was not to patent the exact protocol used to create that cell line, or to patent a therapy protocol.

[someone_else]

I think this law was moot well before its inception. And not because of the unclear logic behind it.

There is a patented way to harvest embryo stem cells without destroying the embryo. Article

So they can patent the hell they want, even writing THIS PROTOCOL USES HUMAN EMBRYO STEM CELLS YOU FUCKING GREENPEACE HIPPIES!!!!! on top.

And the embryos will then sit in cold storage until their time comes and get trashed like everything else.

Just hope the fuckers don't find out.



Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if the company holding the patent for this method is involved somehow in the making or backing of this law. A helluva market it now has.