ECJ bans stem cell technique patents

[TheHiveMind]

http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/ECJ-bans-stem-cell-technique-patents-20111018

London - The European Union's top court ruled on Tuesday that scientists cannot patent stem cell techniques that use human embryos for research purposes, a ruling some scientists said threatens important research since no one could profit from it.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg said the law protects human embryos from any use that could undermine human dignity.

Embryonic stem cells can develop into any type of cell in the body, which one day might be used to replace damaged tissue from ailments such as heart disease, Parkinson's and stroke.


But using stem cells from embryos has been controversial - opposed by some groups for religious and moral reasons.

Despite such concerns, there are no such restrictions on obtaining patents on stem cell techniques in the US and many other countries.

The European ruling centered on the case of Oliver Bruestle at the University of Bonn, who filed a patent on a technique to turn embryonic stem cells into nerve cells in 1997. Greenpeace filed a challenge to Bruestle's patent, arguing that it allows human embryos to be exploited.

The court said patents would be allowed if they involved therapeutic or diagnostic techniques that are useful to the embryo itself, like correcting defects.

But the court objected to any stem cell techniques used exclusively to further research, and wrote that using embryos "for purposes of scientific research is not patentable".

Scientists worried the decision could further restrict stem cell research. Many denounced the decision and said researchers and companies would be less interested in pursuing costly stem cell research because they would be unable to protect their inventions.

Devastating decision


"This is a devastating decision which will stop stem cell therapies' use in medicine," Pete Coffey, a stem cell researcher at University College London, said in a statement. "The potential to treat disabling and life-threatening diseases using stem cells will not be realised in Europe."

Others welcomed the court's ruling.

"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", said Peter Liese, of the EPP Christian Democrat group at the European Parliament.

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

Alexander Denoon, a lawyer at a UK law firm specialising in life sciences, said patent attorneys would probably find ways around the European ban and try to patent the discoveries that result from the stem cell techniques rather than the techniques themselves.

Stem cell research using embryos has been somewhat overshadowed in recent years by a new method first reported in 2007 that reprograms cells to turn (them) into stem cells. No embryos are used, and many researchers are now working on fine-tuning that method.

Still, many scientists contend there is still value in experimenting with stem cells that can be developed from embryos and that researchers need that option.

Unacceptable.
Europe is increasingly secular, gearing itself towards a knowledge/technology based economy (which is actually the only thing it has going for it, even there it's unlikely they can compete on even footing) but the nannies in charge are too busy pandering to religious idiots to bother carry out the peoples' will, or protect their future.
While other countries further technologies and patents, and strip away their rules as a means of competing and leading in all fields, the EU is busy putting red tape all over the place with imaginary politically correct moralities. It is obvious that it is getting in it's own way on purpose, which indicates treason.
I advocate hardline secularists wrestle the EU from the clutches of these anti-euro twits, by any means necessary. No cost is too high.

 

[Pitbull]

http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/ECJ-bans-stem-cell-technique-patents-20111018






Unacceptable.
Europe is increasingly secular, gearing itself towards a knowledge/technology based economy (which is actually the only thing it has going for it, even there it's unlikely they can compete on even footing) but the nannies in charge are too busy pandering to religious idiots to bother carry out the peoples' will, or protect their future investment.
While other countries further technologies and patents, and strip away their rules as a means of competing and leading in all fields, the EU is so busy putting red tape all over the place with imaginary politically correct moralities.
I advocate hardline secular, pan nationalists wrestle the EU from the clutched of the socialists twits, by any means necessary. No cost is too high.

I have no problems with this kind of science.

But if you start breeding human embryos for this purpose then I have a problem with it.

 

[intel8080]

Actually is good news for Africa. Now they have a chance to do some catching up

 

[Nerfherder]

Thats not what the article is about at all.

The European Union's top court ruled on Tuesday that scientists cannot patent stem cell techniques that use human embryos for research purposes, a ruling some scientists said threatens important research since no one could profit from it.

These guys just agreed with the ruling... but its not like they influenced it

Others welcomed the court's ruling.

"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", said Peter Liese, of the EPP Christian Democrat group at the European Parliament.

 

[TheHiveMind]

Actually is good news for Africa. Now they have a chance to do some catching up

Good news for everyone except the EU and humanity.

 

[hungrybeaver]

:erm: Why is this a bad thing?

Removing patents on stem cell research/techniques is actually a good thing in furthering the progress of research. With the ban we won't see companies patent a technique which they could use to halt research that could be done by the scientific community. The technique can't be patented, but the discoveries may be.

 

[VioAdmin]

:erm: Why is this a bad thing?

Removing patents on stem cell research/techniques is actually a good thing in furthering the progress of research. With the ban we won't see companies patent a technique which they could use to halt research that could be done by the scientific community. The technique can't be patented, but the discoveries may be.

This is my thinking as well.

 

[TheHiveMind]

:erm: Why is this a bad thing?

Removing patents on stem cell research/techniques is actually a good thing in furthering the progress of research. With the ban we won't see companies patent a technique which they could use to halt research that could be done by the scientific community. The technique can't be patented, but the discoveries may be.

May be.. Unless these traitors get in the way again, like they usually do when it comes to anything the religious fundamentalist minority might whine about. Without profit or subsidy research will not happen.
If it is likely that this will propel research then why are these religious/lobby groups so happy?

 

[agentrfr]

All this means is that research won't happen in the EU, not the process after it has been perfected. This way the medical companies won't have a stranglehold over the market. It discourages monopoly and encourages competition, driving the cost of the procedure down.

In all, better for end users in EU.


Sent from the MyBroadband iPhone App

 

[LazyLion]

I don't trust anybody anywhere in the world to have the right ethics when it comes to harvesting stem cells from embryos for research.
I'm glad they have these bans in place.
Next thing you will see the Chinese and other unscrupulous countries harvesting and selling human embryos on the black market.
The ECJ is right. This is an issue of human dignity and the preservation of life.

Find another way to harvest the stem cells, but leaves the emryos alone. That way lies trouble.
It won't be long before they will be pushing for the right to use the aged, the mentally ill and the retarded people for research.

 

[jxharding]

also think its great
its like 'open source genetics' and none of this patent fighting bullcrap going on in other sectors of the world
if you want to become a chris barnard, here's your chance. the money WILL come , just not from the big multicorporates

 

[TheHiveMind]

Tell me, which is the leader in the field... Open source or closed source?

Where will the money come from in a non patent, open source model?

 

[hungrybeaver]

May be.. Unless these traitors get in the way again, like they usually do when it comes to anything the religious fundamentalist minority might whine about. Without profit or subsidy research will not happen.
If it is likely that this will propel research then why are these religious/lobby groups so happy?

If the industry sees value in stem cell research it will be funded, patent or not. I won't help but feel cheated when we see a situation where certain scientists find a new cure or element that can't be further developed or researched because companyA holds the patent to it.

quote from a comment on the story:

Oh bull ****. I work in research and have some ****ing stem cells merrily cooking in the incubator RIGHT NOW, so when I say that patents are the bane of scientific progress, I'd hope some people will listen. There is a segment of established, high up scientists who want to make uberbucks cashing in on their (NIH or other govt equivalent funded) success, but younger researchers and really any scientist who values open and free information will tell you that if we start patenting every new idea that comes out of the lab, eventually research will become even more ****ing expensive than it already is. Combine this with governments cutting funding, and you end up with slowed scientific progress, attentuated technological and medical advances, and eventually brain drain from scientists going to countries were we can actually do our work without having to pay an arm and a leg for things that we can get in nature.

I always thought the religious leaders were against stem cell research. I think they see this as a win for humanity, as opposed to in the future where to get a new liver or whatever we'd have to pay exorbitant fees for something that should be available to all. Look at Monsanto to see how their patents on VEGETATION is wrong. Can you imagine the same for human body parts?

Remember that this patent ruling only applies to stem cell research on embryos. There are methods that turn adult cells into stem cells.

In Europe, it might provide incentive for using so-called iPS cells, which are stem cells created without destruction of an embryo, he said.

Those types of stem cells have eclipsed embryonic stem cells in recent years. Using a technique announced in 2007, researchers reprogram adult cells to turn into stem cells. Many scientists are now working to fine-tune that method.

But embryonic stem cell research is still considered crucial in leading scientific circles.

source, on page 2.

No doubt there will be an emphasis on fine-tuning that method now at a much quicker rate.

 

[porchrat]

:erm: Why is this a bad thing?

Removing patents on stem cell research/techniques is actually a good thing in furthering the progress of research. With the ban we won't see companies patent a technique which they could use to halt research that could be done by the scientific community. The technique can't be patented, but the discoveries may be.

Companies won't foot the bills for research they can't recoup costs on. Embryonic stem cell research is expensive.

I'd rather give companies that period of exclusivity than have the research not happen at all. Well really that isn't the case. This research (and all the jobs and prestige along with it) will just move to another location.

 

[hungrybeaver]

Companies won't foot the bills for research they can't recoup costs on. Embryonic stem cell research is expensive.

I'd rather give companies that period of exclusivity than have the research not happen at all. Well really that isn't the case. This research (and all the jobs and prestige along with it) will just move to another location.

A few sites I've read say the same thing: research will move to other countries where IP can be patented. Money wins. Hopefully the other method of using adult cells can be used in the years to come.

 

[porchrat]

A few sites I've read say the same thing: research will move to other countries where IP can be patented. Money wins. Hopefully the other method of using adult cells can be used in the years to come.

Those adult stem cells don't have the same properties as the embryonic ones. We have yet to create truly pluripotent stem cells like embryonic stem cells as far as I'm aware.

Figuring out how to create stem cells like embryonic stem cells (and considering the costs associated with harvesting embryonic stem cells it is in our interest to do so) requires the use of embryonic stem cells in that research. So trying to ban their use is just going to keep us in the stone age.

EDIT: as to money talking of course money talks. Don't pretend you're above it. I'm certainly not. I don't work for free.

 

[TheHiveMind]

@ hungrybeaver
You're making some confused arguments.

You claim dropping patents for embryo stem cell research will make things easier (reduce slowing/stagnation), but the method you advocate (non embryo stem cell techniques) is still subject to patents. Dropping patents almost certainly won't make it easier, I can tell simply by gauging the reported mood of most scientists (upset) and the religious lobbyists (happy) with regards to this ruling.
If dropping patents hurts scientists, then this ruling is restricting science, because that is the only thing that has changed.
The incentive to further research the creation of non embryo stem cells is nice, but embryo stem cell research can be patented elsewhere, and most of it will simply be moved out of the EU, as opposed to into non embryo stem cell research.

 

[hungrybeaver]

Those adult stem cells don't have the same properties as the embryonic ones. We have yet to create truly pluripotent stem cells like embryonic stem cells as far as I'm aware.

Figuring out how to create stem cells like embryonic stem cells (and considering the costs associated with harvesting embryonic stem cells it is in our interest to do so) requires the use of embryonic stem cells in that research. So trying to ban their use is just going to keep us in the stone age.

EDIT: as to money talking of course money talks. Don't pretend you're above it. I'm certainly not. I don't work for free.

In no way am I stating I am above money.

@ hungrybeaver
You're making some confused arguments.

You claim dropping patents for embryo stem cell research will make things easier (reduce slowing/stagnation), but the method you advocate (non embryo stem cell techniques) is still subject to patents. Dropping patents almost certainly won't make it easier, I can tell simply by gauging the reported mood of most scientists (upset) and the religious lobbyists (happy) with regards to this ruling.
If dropping patents hurts scientists, then this ruling is restricting science, because that is the only thing that has changed.
The incentive to further research the creation of non embryo stem cells is nice, but embryo stem cell research can be patented elsewhere, and most of it will simply be moved out of the EU, as opposed to into non embryo stem cell research.

I am not a scientist and am out of my league on this subject. Clearly funding and roi is the major issue here. My problem is at what length are these patent holders going to go to to recoup costs once they find something worth selling on the market? (rhetorical) I just don't like the idea of someone holding a patent to something that could benefit 100s of millions of people, yet all the they see is $$$.

 

[porchrat]

In no way am I stating I am above money.

Nobody is, in any field. That is my point.

I am not a scientist and am out of my league on this subject. Clearly funding and roi is the major issue here. My problem is at what length are these patent holders going to go to to recoup costs once they find something worth selling on the market? (rhetorical) I just don't like the idea of someone holding a patent to something that could benefit 100s of millions of people, yet all the they see is $$$.

Healthcare is a business. It can cost hundreds of millions if not billions to develop a new treatment or medical technology. You wouldn't expect anyone to invest that kind of money into something they're going to give away afterwards in any other field so I don't know why you would expect companies to in this field. Trying to force that sort of situation is just going to lead to the destruction of the entire industry as nobody will be prepared to invest in research any longer.

We research to gain an advantage over those that don't. That is what it means to be human. We reward innovation. We don't force those who innovate to give their innovation away and offer nothing in return. If we do the motivation to innovate vanishes.

 

[noxibox]

Being highly restrictive on what can be patented is a very good thing, but the reasons given in this case are just idiotic.