Animal patenting.

The first bioengineered animal, patented in 1988 and called the "Harvard oncomouse," was programmed with a gene predisposing it to cancer. Harvard researcher Philip Leder developed the animal, and chemical giant DuPont owns exclusive rights to the patent. The controversial milestone brought together religious groups, scientists, farmers, environmentalists and animal rights activists, all opposed to the patenting of life. "The technique of custom-making a rodent, considered the stuff of science fiction a decade ago, has become almost low-tech... so routine at many laboratories that [the president of GenPharm International of Mountain View, California] David Winter calls it |dial-a-mouse," reported Marla Cone in a May 1993 article in the Los Angeles Times. GenPharm's corporate development director Howard Rosen agrees: "We do |custom tailor' mice."

As we face the 21st century, biotechnologists have deemed certain whole animals and parts of animals "man-made inventions." They routinely insert DNA - the substance containing information passed to the next generation - from one species into another. Hence, we have created salmon "superfish" with cow growth hormone genes; pigs, sheep and rats with human blood-clotting genes; and tobacco plants that glow, visibly expressing the light-emitting gene from fireflies. In a February 1993 Los Angeles Times article, "Building a Better Mouse for Testing," Michael Schrage writes: "Much as sculptors carve stone and cinematographers light film, molecular biologists now struggle to manipulate, their animals genetically into research masterpieces."

The first animal patents occurred under the banner of medical research, with experimenters touting the benefits to humankind. Earlier research, however, had focused on creating profitable "super"farm animals. Based on similar experiments with mice, U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA) researchers expected pigs with human growth hormone genes to grow larger and faster on less food. Instead, the pigs were crippled with arthritis, had crossed eyes, gigantism of the skull and generally weakened immune systems. However, they produced less fatty pork than normal pigs. So, the experiments continued despite the unknown health effects of eating genetically-altered meat, and the implications for animal suffering.

Unites States law specifies that patents cannot be granted for naturally occuring organisms. However, since the late 1980s, biotechnologists have circumvented this law by declaring that whole animals and animal parts which have been subjected to genetic manipulations, are not products of nature, but of humans. Experimenters address concerns about preserving the biological integrity of species by referring to genetic alterations as "minor" - involving perhaps one out of 50,000-100,000 genes. They compare such procedures to traditional crossbreeding.

Yet ironically, when the focus is shifted to proprietary interests, these same genetic alterations become so major that the entire animal itself becomes a manmade product. Moreover, in crossbreeding, cows don't mate with fish, humans with mice, nor flounder with tomatoes. Andrew Kimbrell, attorney with the Washington, DC-based Foundation on Economic Trends, states, "Genetic engineering is to traditional crossbreeding what the nuclear bomb was to the sword."

Ethical and environmental concerns aside, biotechnologists hail their industry as the boom of the 90s, awakening recollections of the "better living through chemistry" mantra of the 50s, which promised that chemicals would control nature's pests, produce plentiful crops, and feed starving masses. Just as Rachel Carson and others who questioned agrichemical use were once ridiculed, biotech critics are now labeled animal lovers, against both science and progress - even though, to date, the United States is the only nation to allow the patenting of animals.

In February 1993, U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) introduced the Life Patenting Moratorium Act of 1993 (S-387), a bill that would create a two-year moratorium on the patenting of animals and human tissue. Three months later, Hatfield introduced a bill to establish a national bioethics advisory board (S-1042), which would provide a "suitable structure for evaluating the ethical, environmental and economic considerations" of animal patents. (companion bills still need to be introduced in the House.) Similar bills have been unsuccessfully introduced since 1988, though, after a four-year histus, a de facto moratorium appeared to be in effect. But in December 1992, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) quietly resumed issuing animal patents. First patentees were Harvard University's Philip Leder and William Muller for a mouse genetically engineered to develop an enlarged prostate gland. GenPharm then patented a mouse with components of a human immune system replacing its own. A third mouse, "invented" by Thomas Wagner and Xiao Chen of Ohio University, is engineered to produce interferon, an immune system product.

Fearing this seemingly green light for animal patents, the Foundation on Economic Trends, led by author and activist Jeremy Rifkin, filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the USPTO claiming that these agencies were violating the National Environmental Policies Apt because they failed to perform environmental impact assessments before granting the animal patents. Their petition was subsequently denied.

In February 1993 the USPTO issued two more patents. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services patented a rabbit (which may or may not be genetically engineered) for testing anti-AIDS vaccines. The second patent, granted to Biosys researchers, covers the transforming of pest-fighting roundworms into a state that permits their easier storage and shipment.

Perhaps the most sensational hope of biotechnologists is to invent animals with genetically-engineered human parts whose organs can be farmed out for human transplants - with, theoretically, a lesser chance of rejection from the recipients. However, Dr. Fritz Bach of the Harvard Medical School notes the difficulties inherent in trans-species transplants: "When one kind of rejection is suppressed," he says, "another may take over."

New York Medical College professor Stewart Newman stresses that genetic manipulations are unpredictable, as with the transgenic pigs. Nonetheless, biotechnologists speak of "custom-designing" animals for food and drug production, environmental cleanup and disease "models." Experimenters have considered creating fish that could survive in acid lakes. They have attempted to genetically combine the natural detoxifying abilities of some bacteria with the survivability of others in order to clean up toxic waste sites and oil spills. Environmentalists, however, note the difficulty in predicting the effects of releasing genetically-altered organisms into the environment, not to mention the likely impossibility of retracting a "mistake" and all its progeny. Further, they say, these projects may usurp limited funds from more reliable but less spectacular research.

Biotechnology captured the headlines again in October 1993, when George Washington University scientists cloned human embryos. Dr. Jerry Hall, who led the experiment, was "a bit surprised" by the intense public reaction sparked by the human cloning, research hailed as a means of helping infertile couples. (These cloned embryos were subsequently discarded.)

And most recently, in November 1993, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of "bovine growth hormone." This genetically engineered drug in which the Monsanto Company has invested more than $300 million, increases milk production in cows, provoking criticism from small daily farmers concerned that the glut of dairy products will drive prices down and put them out of business. Veterinarians object to the resulting udder infections and increased need for antibiotics. Consumer groups, again, note the unknown human health effects. Says Jeremy Rifkin, "If Monsanto succeeds with this product, they open the flood gates on the biotechnology age." For now, he adds, the focus on regulatory issues merely sanctions the biotechnology industry rather than asking the more fundamental question: Just because we, can genetically program life, should we,? Contact: Foundation on Economic Trends, 1130 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036/[phone].