Back to "Identity" - Index

Summary of the text "What Makes a Human?" a report in the "New Scientist"

A legal battle between biologists and the government about where life starts and "What Makes a Human" has started. There are massive problems for society to accept that life is regarded to be intellectual property. The discussions about part-human embryos began when scientists mixed genes from goat and sheep to create viable life. Newman and Rifkin, two biologists, applied for a patent which allows them to mix human cells with those of chimpanzees, pigs or other animals. That would be very helpful for medical research they say. But their patent was rejected by the government because it "embraces a human being". Furthermore the ownership of such a patent could be seen as violating the 13th amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits slavery. But the applicants don't understand why this special case embraces human beings and a bacterium, sheep or cow that contains human genes does not. So they point out different patents which allow for example the fusing of human cells with cow eggs stripped of their chromosomes. That case alarmed commentators around the world and they blame the owners of destroying the unique identity of the human species. To state the intention of the text in one sentence, here's a quotation from John Barton of Stanford University School of Law in California:

"There is no legal definition stating how much human material an organism must contain before it is considered human. It's an uncertain line and it is going to have to be drawn at one point."

by Barbara

Source:What Makes a Human?",New Scientist