When members of the J. Craig Venter Institute filed patent #US 2007 0264688 with the U.S. Patent Office, they expected to be met with a flurry of protests. In fact, the tone of the news release sent out by the JCVI PR Department on the day of the filing makes it clear that they anticipated opposition from religious groups, academia, and perhaps even from the Patent Office itself.
This opposition was inevitable because patent #US 2007 0264688 was an attempt to patent synthetic life. No, it was not Dr. Frankenstein’s creature, or Star Trek’s Mr. Data, but it was the next best thing. What JCVI had produced was a self-replicating bacterial cell completely under the control of a synthetic genome.
The development of the synthetic self-replicating cell proved that such organisms can be planned by a computer, constructed chemically in a laboratory, and then placed in a bacterium from which the original DNA had been removed. The new cell then replicated itself one billion times. The process will make DNA synthesis more economical and more affordable leading to possible breakthroughs in the development of new vaccines, innovative pharmaceuticals, clean water, new food products, innovative pollution filters, and possibly even revolutionary new biofuel derivatives. Not everyone was happy with this development, ho w ever. Some religious groups charged Venter with trying to “play God,” while others urged him to slow down and reconsider the implications of his actions. Venter expected this, however, which is why JCVI continues to consult with ethicists, policy makers, and the public at large about the ethical concerns and social consequences of its genetic research. What may have been unexpected was the backlash from other scientists, some of whom accused Venter of trying to corner the market with the patent application. The main objection to the JCVI patent application is that it is too broad. Venter is not attempting to patent the synthetic self-replicating bacterium that his team actually created, but the process of planning, constructing, and creating any synthetic cell imaginable. One critic remarks that what Venter wants is a patent for the wheel so he can claim that he owns the patent rights to aircraft tires, tank treads, and inline skates. Several questions come to mind here, not the least of which is the most basic one of all. Can an inventor patent a living thing? Think about it. [See J. Craig Venter Institute, “First Self-
Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers,” News Release (May 20, 2010), http://www.jcvi.org; and Boonsi Dickinson, “Will Patents Give Craig Venter a Monopoly Over Synthetic Life?” Smart Planet (May 28, 2010), http://
www.smartplanet.com].

Question

1. What is the purpose of patent law? Explain.
2. Why would the competition oppose JCVI’s application for a patent? Explain.
3. What advantages would JCVI have after it obtains a patent for its synthetic cell? Explain. What disadvantages, if any, would JCVI have after obtaining a patent? Explain.
4. What part of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to enact patent law? Explain.
5. What ethical arguments can you imagine might be used against JCVI’s obtaining a patent for its synthetic cell? Explain.