250 • Impacts of Applied Genetics— Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals 
tween the plant protection laws and the loss of 
genetic diversity, the encouragement of using a 
single variety, and any increased control by a 
few corporations of the food supply. (For a de- 
tailed discussion, see ch. 8.) Therefore, any con- 
nection between patenting micro-organisms 
and potential detrimental impacts on the live- 
stock industry appears tenuous at best. The 
assumptions that the Chakrabarty decision will 
inevitably lead to patenting animals, and that 
the consequences will be tbe same as those 
claimed to result from granting limited owner- 
ship rights to varieties of plants, are speculative. 
The morality of patenting living 
organisms 
The moral issue is difficult to analyze because 
it embodies at least three overlapping questions: 
whether it is moral to grant exclusive rights of 
ownership to a living species; whether patents 
on lower forms of life will inevitably lead to 
genetic engineering of humans; and whether 
patenting organisms undermines the generally 
held belief in tbe uniqueness and sanctity of life, 
especially human life. 
It is difficult to assess the extent of the belief 
that patenting living organisms is intrinsically 
immoral, and no such assessment has been 
done. Its extent and intensity will probably be 
directly correlated with the complexity of the 
organism involved. Fewer people will be dis- 
turbed about patenting micro-organisms than 
about patenting cattle. A belief in the immorali- 
ty of patenting a living organism is a value judg- 
ment to which Congress may wish to give some 
consideration. 
The second aspect of the moral issue revolves 
around the well-known metaphor of the “slip- 
pery slope”— the fear that the first steps along 
the path of genetic engineering may irrevocably 
lead to man. Technology, at times, appears to 
have its own momentum; the aphorism "what 
can be done, will be done” has been true in the 
past. Thus, some people fear that patenting 
micro-organisms may indeed set a dangerous 
precedent and encourage the technology to pro- 
gress to the point of the ultimate dehumaniza- 
tion— the engineering of people as an industrial 
enterprise. 
The Chakrabarty opinion was written in nar- 
row terms. But while its reasoning might be ap- 
plied to a future case involving an animal or in- 
sect, it simply could not be used to justify the 
patenting of human beings because of the 13th 
amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits 
the ownership of humans. 
One way to negotiate the slippery slope is to 
deal directly with the adverse aspects of the 
technology. Barriers can be erected along the 
slope; the Constitution already protects 
humans. Congress can erect other harriers by 
statute, specifically drawing lines as to which 
organisms can or cannot be patented. 
The third part of the issue is religous or 
philosophical in nature. For many, the patent- 
ing of a living organism undermines the awe 
and deep respect they hold for the uni(|ue na- 
ture of life. Moreover, it raises appi'ehensions of 
an ultimate threat to concepts of the nature of 
humanity and its place in the uni\ erse. To th(\se 
people, if life can be engineered and patented, 
perhaps it is not special or sacred. If this is ti'ue 
of lower organisms, why would human In'ings 
be different? (This and other aspects of the 
morality issue are discussed in gi’eater detail in 
ch. 13.)' 
Private ownership of inventions 
from publicly funded resean'h 
Much of the basic research in molecular’ gr>- 
netics has been funded by Federal gi’ants. Most 
of tbe work leading to the development of I'DN'.A 
techniques— e.g., was performed at Stanfoi'd 
University and UCSF under NIH grants. I he 
scientists involved have i’ecei\ed a patent on 
that fundamental scientific procrrss. Sonu* o[)- 
ponents of patenting oi’ganisms ha\’e argued 
that private parties shoitld not lu? per'rnitted to 
own inventions resirlting fr'om feder ally funded 
R&,D; and in any evcMit, th(>r'e is something 
special about molecular genetics that re(|uirr‘s 
the Feder'al Governnumt to r’(>tain ow rier’ship o! 
