Supreme Court keeps Pandora’s Box closed… for now

Ottawa, Ontario – The decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Court’s decision to allow the patenting of the genetically-engineered Oncomouse to Harvard University prevented a dangerous Pandora’s Box from being opened, according to the Council of Canadians. But it’s now up to the federal government to face the music and revisit the 19th-century patenting laws.

In essence, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Federal Court of Canada to grant a patent for this genetically engineered mouse, predisposed to develop cancer for research purposes. It would have been the first occurrence in Canada’s history where a patent is granted for animal life. The Supreme Court also strongly suggested that Parliament undertake a comprehensive revision of federal patenting laws, to update them and to address the ethical questions that the patenting of animal life represents.

“The Supreme Court acknowledged today the ethical challenges of this case. The ball is now in Parliament’s court to address the situation,” says Nadège Adam, biotechnology Campaigner for the 100,000-member Council of Canadians. “With close to 1,500 pending patents on animal lifeforms, this is an issue that will haunt the courthouses until the 1869 Canadian patent act is completely rewritten, to explicitly ban the patenting of lifeforms .”

“For years now, the Council of Canadians has pressed the federal government to address this question of corporate control of life. Once again, we ask of the government that it updates the legislation so that it will reflect today’s reality, and not a reality of yesteryear, where only material and inanimate objects were being considered”, concluded Adam.

The Council of Canadians will be looking at the potential implications of this judgement on the case of Percy Schmeiser, the Saskatchewan farmer who was condemned to hefty damages for infringing on giant biotechnology firm Monsanto, after some of its genetically-engineered canola was found in his crops. The GE canola was, in all likelihood, present by contamination (the lower courts rejected any claims of deliberate wrong-doing on Mr. Schmeiser part).

But the courts found that Mr. Schmeiser didn’t respect Monsanto’s patents. Mr. Schmeiser filed an application for leave before the Supreme Court last month.

-30-