Ch.12 — Patenting Living Organisms • 253 
only because of the Chaknibarty decision, hut 
also because of allegations tliat the Acts ha\ e en- 
couraged the planting of uniform \arieties, loss 
of germplasm resources, and inci'eased concen- 
tration in the plant breeding industi'v. In addi- 
tion, information about the ,-\cts’ affect on in- 
no\alion anti competition in the breeding in- 
dustry would be relexant to this aspect of the 
biotechnologx' industi’v. Howex er, it may be ex- 
tremely difficult to isolate the effects of these 
laxx s from the effects of other factors. 
D: Congress could prohibit patents on any living 
organism or on organisnts other than those 
already subject to the plant protection Acts. 
By prohibiting patents on anx' lixing orga- 
nisms, C'ongress xxould be acce[)ting the 
arguments of those x\ ho consider oxx iiership 
rights in lix ing organisms to be immoral, or xx ho 
are concerned about other potentially adxerse 
impacts of such patents. Some of the claimed 
impacts are: 1) patents xxould stimulate the de- 
xelopment of molecular genetic techniques, 
XX hich XX ill ex entually lead to human genetic en- 
gineering: 2) patents contribute to an atmos- 
phere of increasing interest in commercializa- 
tion, XX hich XX ill discourage the open exchange 
of information crucial to scientific research; and 
3) plant patents and protection certificates hax e 
encouraged the planting of uniform xarieties, 
loss of germplasm resources, and increasing 
concentration in the plant breeding industry, 
i .Also, by repealing the plant .Acts, Congress 
!, xxould he rex ersing the policy determination it 
i made in 1930 and in 1970 that oxx nership rights 
I in noxel xarieties of plants xxould stimulate 
plant breeding and agricultural innox ation. 
j A prohibitory statute xx ould hax e to deal xvith 
those organisms at the edge of life, such as 
! xiruses. .Although there are uncertainties and 
b disagreements in classifying some entities as 
' lix ing or nonlix ing, Congress could be arbitrary 
^ in its inclusions and exclusions, so long as it 
; clearly dealt xx ith all of the difficult cases. 
This statute by itself xx ould slow but not stop 
^ the dexelopment of molecular genetic tech- 
niques and the biotechnology industry because 
! there are sex eral good alternatix es for maintain- 
ing e.xclusixe control of biological inventions: 
maintaining organisms as trade secrets; patent- 
ing microbiological processes and their prod- 
ucts; and patenting the inanimate components 
of a genetically engineered micro-organism, 
such as plasmids, xvhich are the crucial ele- 
ments of the technique anyxvav. The develop- 
ment xvoLild be sloxved primarily because infor- 
mation that might otherxvise become public 
xxould be kept as trade secrets. A major conse- 
ciuence xxould be that desirable products xvould 
take longer to reach the market. Also, certain 
organisms or products that might be marginally 
profitable yet beneficial to society, such as some 
vaccines, xvould be less likely to be developed. 
In such cases, the recovery of development 
costs xvould be less likely without a patent to 
assure exclusive marketing rights. 
Alternatixely, Congress could overrule the 
Chakrabarty decision by amending the patent 
laxv to prohibit patents on organisms other than 
the plants covered by the txvo statutes men- 
tioned in option C. This xvould demonstrate 
congressional intent that living organisms could 
be patented only by specific statute and alleviate 
concerns of those xvho fear the "slippery slope.” 
E: Congress could pass a comprehensive law 
covering any or all organisms (except 
humans). 
This option recognizes the fact that Congress 
can draw lines where it sees fit in this area. It 
could specifically limit patenting to micro-orga- 
nisms or encourage the breeding of agricul- 
turally important animals by granting patent 
rights to breeders of new and distinct breeds. 
Any fears that such patents would eventually 
lead to patents on human beings would be un- 
founded, since the 13th amendment to the Con- 
stitution, xvhich abolished slavery, prohibits 
ownership of human life. 
The statute would have to define included or 
excluded species with precision. Although there 
are taxonomic uncertainties in classifying or- 
ganisms, Congress could arbitrarily include or 
exclude borderline cases. 
A statute that permitted patents on several 
types of organisms could be modeled after the 
Plant V^ariety Protection Act— e.g., it should 
cover organisms that are novel, distinct, and 
