考研阅读精选：干细胞研究在欧洲受严格限制

考研网

『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

  ANY country, you might think, would relish being able to call itself  the 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 the  European Union edged ahead. On October 18th the European Court of  Justice (ECJ), the highest court which opines on EU-wide matters, ruled  that methods to derive embryonic stem cells could not be patented. The  ruling sets Europe apart from the rest of the world—even America, long  averse to stem-cell research, has no such qualms.
The  decision concludes a suit from Germany. In 1997 Oliver Brüstle, of the  University of Bonn filed a patent for a method to create neural  precursor cells, which go on to develop into fully functional mature  nerve cells. Dr Brüstle's method derivesthese precursors fromhuman  embryonic stem cells. The hope is that they could eventually be used to  treat degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s disease. The rub is that  extracting embryonic stem cells involves destruction of human embryos.
  However, Dr Brüstle’s challenger was not, as might be expected, a  pro-life activist. It was Greenpeace, an environmental group, though its  main objection, to what it says is the commercialisation of human life,  does have a religious ring to it. The ECJ agreed, deferring to a  directive that bars patents “where respect for human dignity could  thereby be affected”. Any process that involves the destruction of the  human embryo, the court declared, cannot be patented.
The  ruling has sparked immediate uproar among academics. The decision, they  warn, will not just undermine basic research. It will prompt companies  to funnel cash to more welcoming jurisdictions, such as South Korea,  Singapore or China, ordeter them from investing in the field  altogether. Others are more sanguine. Alexander Denoon, a lawyer at a  law firm specialising in biosciences, argues that such a decision was  augured by an earlier one from the European Patent Office in 2008. He  thinks that firms and scientists should be able to adjust without  abandoning research completely. Besides, European researchers can still  seek patents in America and other countries.
In the near  term, however, confusion will reign. Much depends on how lower courts  and patent offices interpret the ECJ’s ruling. The decision may not damn  stem-cell research, as some more excitable boffins fret. But it  willcertainlynobble its European practitioners. (402 words)
文章地址：http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/stem-cell-research