ECJ No patent for embryonic stem cells

Court bans patent on procedures for obtaining embryonic stem cells

10/18/2011

A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg has banned patents on embryonic stem cells, thereby preventing the commercial exploitation of the already highly controversial use of human embryos to obtain stem cells.

The destruction of human embryos violates human dignity, according to the judgment of the European Court of Justice. Environmental protection organizations such as Greenpeace and opponents of embryonic stem cell research celebrated the current verdict as a complete success. Greenpeace had previously massively criticized the claim for patents for embryonic stem cells and before a „industrial use of human embryos“ warned. This is now excluded by the judgment of the European Court of Justice.

Embryos protected from the time of fertilization
During the process, advocates repeatedly emphasized the importance of embryonic stem cells for medical research, thus establishing the need for suitable methods for obtaining stem cells. The early destruction of embryos (before day 14) or their use as starting material should therefore be patentable, according to proponents of commercial use of embryonic stem cells. Especially since human embryos before the 14th day of life do not fall under the protection of human dignity. Numerous experts were quoted in court as saying that embryos could not yet be considered as expectant humans by the 14th day. The cell composition is already human life at this stage, but not an individual. This view was contradicted by the European Court of Justice - to the delight of Greenpeace and the other opponents of the use of embryonic stem cells. The judges agreed with the recommendations of French Attorney General Yves Bot, who had already rated the blastocyst (stage of embryogenesis around the fifth day) as a human embryo.

Human bodies at all stages except patented
With the verdict of the European Court of Human Nursing, living human life is almost from the stage of conception as „human embryo“ to watch. Even fertilization sets in motion the process of human development, said French Advocate General Yves Bot in his recommendation. The destruction of the embryos to obtain stem cells therefore violates the legal protection of human dignity, according to the judgment of the European Court of Justice. Therefore, patents on corresponding procedures can not be granted. The demand of Greenpeace experts like Christoph Then that „the human body should be excluded from patenting at all stages of its development“ must, is thus clearly fulfilled. The feared of Then „downright embryo industry that could emerge in Europe“, is completely suppressed by the current judgment. With the verdict, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg also follows the view of the Church, according to which the fertilized egg should already be considered as a human being and should be protected by human dignity.

Legal doubts about the ECJ ruling
However, legal experts have their difficulties with the reasoning of the court over the human dignity of the under 14. day old embryo. Because during the abortion debate in the 1970s but also in the course of the current discussions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis, numerous experts had argued in the opposite direction. For example, during the parliamentary debate on the preimplantation genetic diagnosis in July, the question was discussed as to whether parents can decide in the context of an artificial insemination against the insertion of artificially produced embryos into the uterus of a woman. Here, several experts explained that the embryos are not to be judged by the 14th day yet as expectant people and thus a decision against the insertion does not violate human dignity. As part of the review of the § 218 Criminal Code, the Federal Constitutional Court had declared in 1975 that „Living in the sense of the historical existence of a human individual after secure biological-physiological knowledge, at least from the 14th day after conception“ consists. Thus, the question remains open whether the judgment of the European Court of Justice does not deprive itself of its own reasoning at this point. Especially since other legal reasons could be found that prohibit patenting procedures for the destruction of embryos.

Alternatives to embryonic stem cells?
According to Greenpeace, the lawsuit also seeks to create additional economic incentives for the investigation of ethically and morally less questionable procedures by prohibiting patents on procedures for obtaining embryonic stem cells. As such, some physicians consider, for example, the development of so-called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS). These can be obtained, for example, by breeding back from ordinary skin cells. Again, critics are concerned about the development that stem cell research might take. But the concerns are significantly lower than in the case of the embryonic stem cells, on the acquisition of the Bonn scientist Oliver Brüstle wanted to register a patent in 1999, which had triggered the now decided by the European Court of Justice litigation. (Fp)

Also read:
Hereditary diseases cure with stem cells?
Liver disease treated with stem cells
With stem cells for strokes?
Blood disease: gene therapy with side effects
Stem cells for the treatment of eye diseases?
Stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury

Picture credits: Petra Dietz