In this essay, I will use the phrase “human DNA patenting” instead of the more popular phrase “human gene patenting” because the more popular idiom is misleading. The patents that have been approved by patent offices do not mention “human genes,” but usually describe “isolated and purified DNA sequences.” This is not a trivial point: A gene is a functional unit that carries the information needed to make a protein, which includes DNA that codes for the primary structure of the protein (the coding region) as well as DNA that regulates translation and transcription of the coding region. Moreover, some DNA sequences, such as genetic markers, are much smaller than genes. Some patents, such as patents on expressed sequence tags (ESTs), apply to genetic markers. See Wong, D., The ABCs of Gene Cloning (New York: Chapman and Hall, 1997). I would also like to point out that the notion of “human” DNA is a bit ambiguous since human beings share a large percentage of their DNA with chimpanzees, a slightly lesser percentage with pigs, and a still fair percentage with yeast. To make sense of this biological fact, by “human” DNA, I mean “DNA that is a part of a genome of a member of the species Homo sapiens.” Although much of the DNA in human DNA is structurally similar to DNA that occurs in non-human species, DNA is “human” by virtue of its functional role in a human genome. By way of comparison, the same automotive part, such as a fan belt, may be present in many different vehicles, but a fan belt is a Ford Ranger fan belt by virtue of its functional role (turning the fan) in a Ford Ranger truck. See Resnik, D., “The Morality of Human Gene Patents,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7, no. 1 (1997): 43–61.Google Scholar

Resnik, D., “The Human Genome Project: Ethical Problems and Solutions,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 18, no. 1 (1999): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joint Appeal Against Human and Animal Patenting, Press Conference Text (Washington, D.C.: Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, May, 16, 1995).Google Scholar

Rifkin, J., The Biotech Century (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998).Google Scholar

European Commission, Opinions of the Group of Advisors on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology of the European Commission (Brussels: European Commission, 1996).Google Scholar

Knoppers, M., “Status, Sale, and Patenting of Human Genetic Material: An International Survey,” Nature Genetics, 22 (1999): 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crespi, R., “An Analysis of Moral Issues Affecting Patenting Inventions in the Life Sciences: A European Perspective,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 6, no. 2 (2000): 157–80.Google Scholar

Council for Responsible Genetics, The Genetic Bill of Rights (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Council for Responsible Genetics, 2000).Google Scholar

Nader, R., Nader 2000 (visited November 6, 2000) <http://www.votenader.org/issues/agriculture_policy.html>..>Google Scholar

Evans, J., “The Uneven Playing Field in the Dialogue on Patenting,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998): At 57–74.Google Scholar

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (1787).Google Scholar

Patent and Trademark Office, General Information Concerning Patents (Washington, D.C.: Patent and Trademark Office, 1999).Google Scholar

Foster, F. and Shook, R., Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, 2d ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1993).Google Scholar

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar

Foster, and Shook, supra note 13.Google Scholar

Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 12.Google Scholar

Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 12.Google Scholar

Foster, and Shook, supra note 13.Google Scholar

Doll, J., “The Patenting of DNA,” Science, 280 (1998):689–90.Google Scholar

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar

Einsenberg, R., “Patenting the Human Genome,” Emory Law Journal, 39 (1990): 721–45; Eisenberg, R., “Patenting Organisms,” Encyclopedia of Bioethics, rev. ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995): At 1911–14.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, R., “Structure and Function in Gene Patenting,” Nature Genetics, 15, no. 2 (1997): 125–30.Google Scholar

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, Primer: Genetic Research, Patent Protection and 21st Century Medicine (Washington, D.C.: Biotechnology Industry Organization, 2000).Google Scholar

Eisenberg, supra note 22.Google Scholar

Sagoff, M., “DNA Patents: Making Ends Meet,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association of the Advancement of Science, 1999): At 245–68.Google Scholar

Wong, supra note 1.Google Scholar

Attwood, T., “The Babel of Bioinformatics,” Science, 290 (2000): 471–73.Google Scholar

Doll, supra note 19.Google Scholar

Merz, J. et al., “Disease Gene Patenting Is Bad Innovation,” Molecular Diagnosis, 2, no. 4 (1997): 299–304.Google Scholar

Resnik, D., “DNA Patents and Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Assessing Benefits and Risks,” Science and Engineering Ethics (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Land, R. and Mitchell, B., “Patenting Life: No,” First Things, 63, (May 1997): 20–22.Google Scholar

Frankena, W., Ethics, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973).Google Scholar

Kant, I., Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Patton, H. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1953).Google Scholar

Hill, T., Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant's Moral Theory (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992); Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Steinbock, B., Life Before Birth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

Ganeri, A., Religions Explained (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997).Google Scholar

Peters, T., Playing God (New York: Routledge, 1997).Google Scholar

Brunner, E., The Divine Imperative (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947).Google Scholar

Gold, E., Body Parts (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

Radin, M., Contested Commodities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Hanson, M., “Biotechnology and Commodification within Health Care,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24, no. 3 (1999):267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radin, supra note 40.Google Scholar

Hanson, M., “Religious Voices in Biotechnology: The Case of Gene Patenting,” Hastings Center Report, 27, no. 6, special supplement (1997): 1–21.Google Scholar

Berger, F., “Pornography, Sex, and Censorship,” Social Theory and Practice, 4, no. 2 (1997): 380–95.Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., Social Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973).Google Scholar

Radin, supra note 40.Google Scholar

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, Patenting the Human Genome (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1997).Google Scholar

Doll, J., personal communication, September 1, 2000.Google Scholar

Hanson, supra note 43.Google Scholar

Resnik, supra note 1.Google Scholar

Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar

Gibbons, A., “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?,” Science, 281 (1998): 1432–34.Google Scholar

Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar

Council and Ethical and Judicial Affairs, supra note 47.Google Scholar

Brody, B., “Protecting Human Dignity and the Patenting of Human Genes,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association of the Advancement of Science, 1999): At 111–26.Google Scholar

Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S., The DNA Mystique (New York: Free Press, 1995).Google Scholar

Land, , Mitchell, supra note 31.Google Scholar

Peters, supra note 37.Google Scholar

Brody, supra note 55.Google Scholar

Friedman, T., “Overcoming the Obstacles to Gene Therapy,” Scientific American, 276, no. 6 (1997): 66–101.Google Scholar

Brody, supra note 55.Google Scholar

European Commission, supra note 5.Google Scholar

Resnik, D., Steinkraus, H., and Langer, P., Human Germline Gene Therapy (Austin, Texas: R.G. Landes, 1999).Google Scholar

Brody, supra note 55.Google Scholar

Nelkin, D., Andrews, L., “Homo Economicus: The Commercialization of Body Tissue in the Age of Biotechnology,” Hastings Center Report, 28, no. 5 (1998): 30–39.Google Scholar

Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar

Radin, supra note 40; Nelkin, , Andrews, supra note 65; Gold, supra note 39; Hanson, supra note 41.Google Scholar

Nelkin, and Andrews, supra note 65.Google Scholar

Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar

Hanson, supra note 41.Google Scholar

Feinberg, supra note 45.Google Scholar

Resnik, supra note 30.Google Scholar

Andrews, L., “Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists,” Law, Medicine, & Healthcare, 16, no. 1 (1988):72–80.Google Scholar

Anderson, E., “Is Women's Labor a Commodity?,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, no. 1 (1990): 71–92.Google Scholar

Robertson, J., Children of Choice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

Resnik, D., “Regulating the Market for Human Eggs,” Bioethics (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Hanson, supra note 43; Evans, J., “The Uneven Playing Field of the Dialogue on Patenting,” in Chapman, A., ed., Perspectives on Gene Patenting (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1999): At 57–74.Google Scholar

Marshall, E., “Legal Fights over Patents on Life,” Science, 294 (1999): 2067–68.Google Scholar