From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Mon Sep 14 1998 - 16:34:41 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> CALYK@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > My friend told me that a scientist made a patent on genetically combining a
> > monkey with a human. He made the patent so no one would do it. Does that
> > mean no one can? Is it right to own a process of nature so no one can use it?
> > I see it more as the ability to do electronics or something, electronics is
> > open territory, if its possible and you want to play with a certain aspect you
> > should be able to.
>
> Ralph Nader (not by any stretch of the imagination a scientist) applied for a
> patent on human/animal "chimeras" for the purpose of "stimulating public
> debate". The Patent Office refused on the grounds that you can't patent
> something immoral.
I highly doubt that, or even if the current Patent Commissioner said that, that
there are no legal grounds to support such a stance. I'm sure there are plenty of
sex toys out there that have patents granted on them....likewize I'm sure there are
plenty of extremely nasty porno mags and videos out there that are likewize
protected by copyrights. I do happen to know that there are several devices for
executing humans which are patented, which clearly violate the consitutional
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and are thus legally 'immoral',
yet still have patents granted.
If this is true, I'd like to see the Patent Office's philosophical proof of the
immorality of a human/animal gengineered organism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:34 MST