x

[Joan]

x

Edited September 13, 2012 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Did you name your band after this mouse?

You betcha! Just the right combination of national pride and tasteless morbidity .

The tag-line we used to toss around was "music for the genetically altered" .

[AWeeJig]

Excellent name for a band Good Dr.

One helluva disturbing post to Sugar Megs. But I liked it. Thanx for getting my mushy sleep deprived brain to work for five minutes.

[timouse]

Excellent name for a band Good Dr.

One helluva disturbing post to Sugar Megs. But I liked it. Thanx for getting my mushy sleep deprived brain to work for five minutes.

indeed, thanks for posting this, sm.

the worst thing about christening our band "Harvard Mouse" was that when you googled harvard mouse, there were hundreds of pages about the real harvard mouse that came up before we did.

ironically, we now seem to come up consistently in 1st or 2nd

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

! That's hilarious! (Unless it's an indication of how little people are following up the real story ).

[StoneMtn]

I've linked to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on this before in another thread, but I don't know how many of you who are interested saw it.

Anyway, if you want to read the final Canadian judgment on the Harvard/onco-mouse, click the following summary of the judgment:

The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled "transgenic animals". According to the application, a cancer-promoting gene ("oncogene") is injected into fertilized mouse eggs as close as possible to the one-cell stage. The eggs are then implanted into a female host mouse and permitted to develop to term. After the offspring of the host mouse are delivered, they are tested for the presence of the oncogene. Those that contain the oncogene are called "founder" mice. Founder mice are mated with mice that have not been genetically altered. Fifty per cent of the offspring will have all of their cells affected by the oncogene, making them suitable for animal carcinogenic studies. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the oncomice are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non-human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent's appeal from the appellant's decision. The respondent's further appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was allowed.

Held (McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie and Arbour JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of "invention" in s. 2 of the Patent Act.

Per L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.: This appeal raises the issue of the patentability of higher life forms within the context of the Patent Act...