LONDON (AP) — The European Union's top court ruled Tuesday that scientists cannot patent stem cell techniques that use human embryos for research, a decision some scientists said could threaten major medical advances if it prevents biotech companies from turning a profit.
The ruling sets Europe apart from much of the rest of the world, where there are no such restrictions, and it arose from a lawsuit filed not by a religious group but by the environmental group Greenpeace.
The decision from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg centered on the case of a University of Bonn researcher who in 1997 filed a patent on a technique to turn embryonic stem cells into nerve cells. Greenpeace challenged Oliver Bruestle's patent, arguing that it allowed human embryos to be exploited.
The court said patents would be allowed if they involved therapeutic or diagnostic techniques that are useful to the embryo itself, like correcting defects.
But the justices concluded that the law protects human embryos from any use that could undermine their dignity. The court also objected to any stem cell techniques used exclusively for research, saying such use of embryos "is not patentable."
Embryonic stem cells can develop into any type of cell in the body. The hope is that one day they might be used to replace or repair damaged tissue from ailments such as heart disease, Parkinson's and stroke.
But using stem cells from embryos has always been controversial — opposed by some groups for religious and moral reasons.
Greenpeace spokesman Christoph Then explained that the lawsuit was an effort to get a clear, legal definition of what constitutes a living embryo. The group is concerned that patents on plants and animals could lead to monopolies in food production.
Greenpeace approaches the issue from "a completely different angle" than anti-abortion activists, specifically a fear that living creatures will be abused for the sake of profits, Then said.
"We took an ethical approach," he said, noting that European patent law had failed to define what constitutes a human embryo. "We are mostly concerned about commercialization of the human body."
Scientists worried that the decision could further restrict stem cell research. Many feared that companies would be less interested in pursuing costly research projects because they would be unable to protect their inventions.
"This casts real doubt on the possibility of new medicines from stem cell research," said Pete Coffey, a researcher at University College London running several projects on eye disease and stem cells.
"Getting a stem cell technique to cure blindness is fantastic, but it may never get out as a medicine because no manufacturer will get any financial reward from it," he said.
Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer at Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology, called the ruling "a devastating decision for the field."
Lanza, whose company has several stem cell projects, described the European court's decision as "the kiss of death" for research that requires the destruction of embryos. But, he said, other techniques, such as those used by his company, would not be banned.
Some European religious groups welcomed the ruling.
"We are in favor of research and development in biotechnology, but human beings must not be destroyed, not even in the early stages of their development," said Peter Liese of the EPP Christian Democrat group at the European Parliament.
The German Bishops' Conference, part of the Catholic Church, called the decision a "victory for human dignity" and said it strengthened the view that life begins at conception.
Alexander Denoon, a lawyer at a U.K. law firm specializing in life sciences, said attorneys would probably find ways around the European ban, perhaps by seeking patents on discoveries that result from the stem cell techniques rather than the techniques themselves.
Hank Greely, a law professor at Stanford University who directs the school's Center for Law and the Biosciences, said the decision seems like a reasonable interpretation of a 1998 directive by the European Union that forbids patenting the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.
In its latest move, the court extended that ban to products whose creation requires the destruction of embryos.
The ruling will not have any direct legal impact in the United States, which has no such restrictions on obtaining patents on stem cell techniques.
In Europe, it might provide incentive for using so-called iPS cells, which are stem cells created without destruction of an embryo, he said.
Those types of stem cells have eclipsed embryonic stem cells in recent years. Using a technique announced in 2007, researchers reprogram adult cells to turn into stem cells. Many scientists are now working to fine-tune that method.
But embryonic stem cell research is still considered crucial in leading scientific circles.
Douglas Melton, a stem cell expert at Harvard University, said he knows of few researchers who use cell reprogramming who do not also conduct research on human embryonic stem cells
<한글기사>
EU, 인간배아 줄기세포 연구 특허 불인정
유럽에서 인간 배아 줄기세포를 이용한 연 구 방법이 특허로 인정받을 수 없게 됐다.
룩셈부르크에 있는 유럽연합(EU) 법원은 18일(현지시간) 인간 배아 줄기세포 연 구가 유럽연합 법률 하에서 특허로서 보호받을 수 없다고 결정했다고 dpa, 블룸버그 등 외신이 전했다.
EU 법원측은 "줄기세포를 배반포 상태의 배아에서 추출함으로써 배아에 손상을 줄 수 있는 연구 방식에 특허권을 부여할 수 없다"고 밝혔다.
배반포 상태는 수정된 지 5일 이내의 배아를 말한다.
1998년부터 EU 법에서는 인간 배아를 산업 또는 상업적 목적으로 연구하는 방법 에 대해서는 특허권을 인정하지 않고 있다.
이번 결정은 인간 배아 줄기세포 연구에 대한 특허소송을 다루는 독일 연방 법 원이 지난해 EU법원에 `인간 배아' 문구와 용어에 대한 해석 기준을 요청한 데 따른 것이다.
이번 소송은 독일이 올리버 브뤼스틀레 교수의 줄기세포 연구에 특허를 인정한 것에 대해 그린피스가 문제를 제기하고 나서면서 불거졌다.
브뤼스틀레 교수는 이번 판결 후 현지 언론과의 인터뷰에서 "줄기세포 분야의 생명공학 연구에서 믿을 수 없는 후퇴"라며 "EU 법원이 과한 결정을 내림으로써 미 국, 아시아와의 경쟁에서 뒤처지게 됐다"고 반발했다.
크리스토프 텐 그린피스 대변인은 "우리는 유럽 법으로 인간 배아를 보호할 수 있는 근본적인 결정을 원했고 명확한 해답을 얻었다"며 "상업적인 이해는 후퇴하고 고결함이 우선하게 됐다"고 말했다.
