Acceso usuarios
Shawn H. E. Harmon, Graeme Laurie, Aidan Courtney
The patenting of living materials has been the subject of extensive controversy, and Brüstle v Greenpeace represents yet another skirmish over the patentability of inventions reliant on human embryos. This article examines the Court of Justice's decision in Brüstle from the legal and scientific/commercial angles, which are the two fields where it is proving to be most disruptive. We examine its legal and theoretical implications and shortcomings, focusing on the European law with which it failed to engage, and then its claimed, actual, and possible scientific and commercial consequences. We conclude that this important case, while already having obvious research funding consequences, will have more subtle commercial implications and potentially far-reaching legal consequences, as its questionable definition of the human embryo spills over into other fields.
