考研阅读精选：干细胞研究在欧洲受严格限制
『欧洲法院（ECJ）规定，基于对人类胚胎使用的干细胞技术不能获取专利。』European science stemmed
干细胞研究在欧洲受严格限制
Oct 19th 2011| from the Economist
http://images.koolearn.com/casupload/upload/fckeditorUpload/2011-11-29/image/15201f72e64349deafd8be2be443a4e3.jpg
ANY country, you might think, would relish being able to call itselfthe world’s leader in scientific research. America and Europe, however,seem to be in a bizarre parallel contest: which can make its scientists'lives more difficult by imposing the most muddled rules. This week theEuropean Union edged ahead. On October 18th the European Court ofJustice (ECJ), the highest court which opines on EU-wide matters, ruledthat methods to derive embryonic stem cells could not be patented. Theruling sets Europe apart from the rest of the world—even America, longaverse to stem-cell research, has no such qualms.
Thedecision concludes a suit from Germany. In 1997 Oliver Brüstle, of theUniversity of Bonn filed a patent for a method to create neuralprecursor cells, which go on to develop into fully functional maturenerve cells. Dr Brüstle's method derivesthese precursors fromhumanembryonic stem cells. The hope is that they could eventually be used totreat degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s disease. The rub is thatextracting embryonic stem cells involves destruction of human embryos.
However, Dr Brüstle’s challenger was not, as might be expected, apro-life activist. It was Greenpeace, an environmental group, though itsmain objection, to what it says is the commercialisation of human life,does have a religious ring to it. The ECJ agreed, deferring to adirective that bars patents “where respect for human dignity couldthereby be affected”. Any process that involves the destruction of thehuman embryo, the court declared, cannot be patented.
Theruling has sparked immediate uproar among academics. The decision, theywarn, will not just undermine basic research. It will prompt companiesto funnel cash to more welcoming jurisdictions, such as South Korea,Singapore or China, ordeter them from investing in the fieldaltogether. Others are more sanguine. Alexander Denoon, a lawyer at alaw firm specialising in biosciences, argues that such a decision wasaugured by an earlier one from the European Patent Office in 2008. Hethinks that firms and scientists should be able to adjust withoutabandoning research completely. Besides, European researchers can stillseek patents in America and other countries.
In the nearterm, however, confusion will reign. Much depends on how lower courtsand patent offices interpret the ECJ’s ruling. The decision may not damnstem-cell research, as some more excitable boffins fret. But itwillcertainlynobble its European practitioners. (402 words)
文章地址：http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/stem-cell-research
页:
[1]