Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Patent PoliticsLife Forms, Markets, and the Public Interest in the United States and Europe$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Shobita Parthasarathy

Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780226437859

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: September 2017

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226437996.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use.date: 13 June 2021

Commodification, Animal Dignity, and Patent-System Publics

Commodification, Animal Dignity, and Patent-System Publics

Chapter:
(p.81) 3 Commodification, Animal Dignity, and Patent-System Publics
Source:
Patent Politics
Author(s):

Shobita Parthasarathy

Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226437996.003.0004

Chapter 3 compares controversies over patenting genetically engineered animals in the United States and Europe. It argues that through these debates, the two jurisdictions developed different understandings of who could participate in the patent system, and how they could do so. In the United States, farmers, animal rights groups, and environmental organizations argued that animal patents would devalue life and change the relationship between humans and their environment. They tried to make their voices heard in Congress, the courts, and in the bureaucracy. In response, the patent system’s stakeholders and government officials reinforced what I call an “expertise barrier”: formal and informal rules that develop over the course of a policy domain’s history and are shaped by the jurisdiction’s political culture and ideology. In Europe, civil society groups challenged the European Patent Office itself, and focused on its decision to allow a patent on the Oncomouse, an animal genetically engineered to contract cancer. They used the opposition mechanism to make their deontological and utilitarian ethical arguments heard. Finally, the bureaucracy issued a much narrower patent on the Oncomouse. In doing so, it accepted a role for both civil society and ethics concerns in patent decisionmaking.

Keywords:   Oncomouse, genetically engineered animals, patent system, ethics, opposition mechanism, animal rights, expertise barrier, participation, political culture, bureaucracy

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.