Aggregated News
The September 24, 2013 grant of a patent to 23andMe for “gamete donor selection based on genetic calculations” has stirred another round of controversy about “designer babies.” Predictably, the press and blogosphere lit up with condemnations of both 23andMe and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Karen Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times writes that the patent itself is “even more repulsive than the idea of using DNA tests to help people create designer babies.” Dov Fox of the University of San Diego School of Law suggests that “Congress should consider amending the patent law to appoint ‘ethics representatives’ to the PTO.” Sigrid Sterckx, et al., writing in Genetics in Medicine, note that the PTO did not “question whether techniques for facilitating the ‘design’ of future human babies were appropriate subject matter for a patent.”
So, while some ire has been and will be directed at 23andMe itself, commentators are also raising larger questions about patent eligibility and the patent application process.
We should note that the original provisional patent application was filed in late 2008. In the patent...
So, while some ire has been and will be directed at 23andMe itself, commentators are also raising larger questions about patent eligibility and the patent application process.
We should note that the original provisional patent application was filed in late 2008. In the patent...