There are many examples of inspirations in history. Sometimes it comes with a dream, as it happened to famous chemist, Friedrich Kekule (1829-1896), helping him to make one of the most amazing discoveries of his time. He saw atoms in his dream whirling, dancing and reassembling themselves in a snake-like motion, and the snake snapping its own tail. This dream provided him with the inspiration to discover the benzene ring. Benzene, a colorless and highly flammable liquid, is an important industrial solvent in the production of drugs, plastics, and dyes. Kekule is not the only person who found inspiration to an important question in his dream. For example, Otto Loewi, a famous German scientist, was inspired by a dream about an experiment that became the foundation for the theory of chemical transmission of the nervous impulse and led to a Nobel Prize. Once you contemplate on a question long enough, it becomes an important part of your life. You start seeing things in a different way, and everything becomes related to that question.

Ten years ago, a close friend of mine asked me a very interesting question. He said, “Did you ever read or witness any inspiration from Holy Scriptures, like the Qur’an, pointing to the Internet? After this question, I started to think deeply about the texts I had read, or the things I saw in my environment, and selected my readings more carefully. This helped me to capture more inspirations from my life.

It did not take long for me to relate many verses from scriptures to the question posed by my friend. It was an easy process to go backwards from the result to the possible starting ideas (verses). The hard thing about inspiration is that both the starting point and the result are unknown. Once we know the result that we wanted to achieve, it is easy to relate many things and find similarities around us that might get us to the same point. This can be either a scientific fact or a religious belief.

The relationship between science and religion, and inspirations from scriptures are the two most common controversial topics. Science and religion are the two strongest forces influencing humans. Some people use science to justify religious claims, while others start from religious information to reach unknown scientific points. Both approaches have many challenges, and may lead to consequences that conflict with one’s belief. Scriptures can help us think outside of the box, and provide many inspirations for science. However, it is important to keep the balance between both worlds, while working hard on understanding science and building our faith on a solid ground.

So, how did I find the verses that pointed to the idea of the Internet in the Scriptures? I started to think of the core properties that make up the Internet. What will be my first words if I wanted to define the Internet? Some of the key definitions or features of the Internet that came to my mind was “a world-wide network of computers,” “connecting people to each other,” “storing or accessing world of information,” “removing physical boundaries,” “easy and cheap communication,” or “freedom of speech.”

Which feature of the Internet would sound too intricate to ever exist a thousand years ago? Probably, the possibility of storing and accessing all the information available throughout the history of mankind would be the most challenging feature. We haven’t reached that point with the Internet yet, but so much ground has been covered towards this goal. Let’s see how much progress is made on this road of storage and retrieval.

Wikipedia, a free web-based multilingual encyclopedia project, has over 22 million articles (over four million in the English Wikipedia). There are roughly 40 million books in US libraries. Google is building the largest online library in the history of the world, and already scanned over 20 million books. ISI Web of Knowledge, an online scientific database, is a source for thousands of journals with millions of articles published from 1900s to present. Everything published in the last couple of centuries becoming available online from handwritten books to newspaper archives, magazines, and journals.

Chemistry databases list information (e.g. structures, spectra, reactions, syntheses, and thermo-physical data) for tens of millions of organic and inorganic compounds known to man that are used in various industries. Biological databases provide information (e.g. gene sequences, textual descriptions, attributes and ontology classifications, citations, and tabular data) for living and even extinct organisms.

Besides the published information, other types of data from various types of arts, music and picture libraries are becoming an important part of the Internet. More and more museums provide virtual galleries that make all paintings, sculptures and other art pieces accessible to remote users. E-government projects make personal records, health and financial data of all citizens available to related parties. More personal information is available online through personal blogs, image galleries, video sharing, and discussion forums.

Could you make a person, fifty years or even fourteen hundred years ago, believe that one day all the information would be available in a book, a box or a device? This was my starting point to find clues about the Internet in the scriptures. This journey led to many interesting ideas and understanding of my environment. In the middle of the search, the Holy Qur’an provided an important message to summarize this journey:

“With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder, that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may think and reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)

As an explanation to this verse, Ibn Mas`ud, the sixth person to embrace Islam, said “[Allah] made it clear that in this Qur’an there is complete knowledge of and about everything.” The Holy Qur’an contains many verses about events in the past and future, what is lawful and unlawful, and information about the religion, our life in this world, and our destiny in the afterlife. Divinely inspired Scriptures, Prophets, and laws were sent successively, in part as an assurance of the true knowledge.

Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Muslim scholar, lists the types of knowledge and understanding as follows; “… that is based on beholding or actively seeing something, inner (comprehensive knowledge) or outer (description and measurement), implementation of the lesser understanding (technology) or of the spiritual understanding (contemplation and worship, which yield wisdom), learning and teaching, self-based or other-based, the learner’s or teacher’s belief in independence of action or being, and of the believer’s surrender and trust to the Creator …” [1]. We need to learn how to “read” the universe and scriptures consciously to acquire true understanding and wisdom.

My search for the inspiration for an idea of the Internet led me to find many verses from the Holy Qur’an. Here are some of the verses that I personally think is a starting point to inspire the idea of storing all the information known to mankind.

“… there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a clear record (to those who can read)” (Qur’an 6:59)

“… nor is hidden from the Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the smallest and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record” (Qur’an 10:61)

“… and there is nothing hidden, in heaven or earth, but is (recorded) in a clear record” (Quran 27:75)

These verses can be interpreted in different ways. Some scholars refer these verses to the knowledge of the All-Knowing God, or a book called Lawh al-Mahfuz that stores the information on the destiny of mankind. Actually relating these verses with the Internet, and the traditional interpretations have a very interesting connection. With ever-growing capacity and capabilities, the Internet is like a small book of destiny that stores our everyday life. However, it is far from storing every single event in the universe. This helps us to realize how mighty and vast the knowledge of the God is, and the capacity of Lawh al-Mahfuz.

When I recited the verses from Qur’an that related to the idea of the Internet, my friend was surprised. As in this example, scientific discoveries and inspirations can be connected with the verses from the Qur’an in many ways. It is important to make this connection for the greater good. Gülen says, “… Recent scientific discoveries have clarified certain Qur’anic verses. Such advances in knowledge occur successively, as the universe proceeds upon its decreed course and in the measure of understanding appointed for us. We must acknowledge and praise the efforts and achievements of researchers and scientists, but they should not lead us to ingratitude and insolence (the roots of unbelief). Rather, we should reaffirm our dependence upon the Creator for guidance both in our quest for and application of knowledge…” [1]. There is no doubt that the Qur’an drives us to deep thoughts, creativity, inspirations and great ideas.

Our further discussion raised another important question, “What is the purpose of reading scriptures?” To know why we read scriptures is as important as reading itself. The Qur’an explains the meaning of reading and draws attention to creation [2] by saying: “Read, in the name of your Lord, Who created” [Qur’an 96:1]. The Qur’an suggests us to observe the universe and learn from its laws and processes so we do not repeat the mistakes of the previous generations, and instead, build a better future.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced at MERGEOUS [3], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

Halil I. Demir is an internet entrepreneur and freelance writer.

References

1. Gülen, Fethullah. Questions and Answers about Islam, NJ: The Light, Inc.
2. Gülen. Fethullah Religious Education of the Child, NJ: The Light, Inc.
3. Mergeous, http://www.mergeous.com

In this article I address four questions regarding the importance of mathematics in our lives:

1. Why is mathematical thinking significant to comprehend the universe and how it runs?

2. What are the problems in the new millennium and what solutions to these problems are expected from scientists?

3. How important a role does mathematics play in today’s world?

4. What is the relationship between defense industry and space research

In contemporary scientific research methodology, mathematics is the most objective tool which can be used to draw a general conclusion from outcomes obtained. Mathematics is considered to be an expression of the knowledge of the All-Knowing. This characteristic of mathematics recognized by Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages was emphasized by well known scholars such as Ghazali, Al-Biruni, Nasiruddin Tusi, Al-Hujandi, and Al-Khwarizmi. Following in the path of Muslim scholars and being considered one of the pioneers of modern science, Galileo stated in his second book published in 1623, Il Saggiatore, that “it is impossible to understand the universe without learning the real logic of the universe and decoding its characters. The universe was created in mathematical logic and it is impossible for us as human beings to comprehend its words without mathematics.” Galileo’s statement points towards an important truth-that even though it is possible partially to explain the intricate perfection in the universe through the mathematics that has been developed so far, we are not skilled enough to produce or comprehend any mathematical systems or formulas that can express the whole universe despite the complexity of occurrences that go on in the universe.

In the history of science, the structure and the mechanism of the universe have been explained to some extent using mathematics. Physicists have developed equations to demonstrate the structure of matter and forces in nature. An engineer who designs an artificial heart considers the equation that governs the bloodstream in a vein. An astronaut at NASA utilizes equations that describe the motion of satellites or the orbit of a spacecraft. In our contemporary world, the crucial role of mathematics is the main reason why Landon Clay, a millionaire philanthropist and the founder of the Clay Mathematics Institute, came up with a list of seven “millennium problems” and promised seven million dollars to the first person who found the solution to each of them. They have not yet been solved.

Many of us remember traditional mathematics classes as boring because they were not apparently related to real life. Only once symbols and equations become meaningful and solutions are found, does mathematics become pleasurable. Despite the stress endured, true success is hidden in the process of writing the correct equation. An equation developed to solve a specific mathematics problem becomes an invention when it is practically used in life, for example, to build a spacecraft or design a medical device.

However; in order to make an invention, the correct equation for that invention needs to be developed, or a pre-developed equation that works for the invention needs to be determined. The next step is to solve it. Even if the solution to an equation cannot be found, an approximate solution can always be discovered and used to build an invention.

The equations for two of the millennium problems come from physics. One of the problems involves finding a general solution to the Navier-Stokes equations governing fluid dynamics. These equations were first formulated in the 1820s to describe the motion of fluids and gasses. Examples include the flow of water around a boat, air over the wings of a plane, and blood pumped from the heart to the vessels. At first glance, the Navier-Stokes equations resemble equations taught at the undergraduate level in the fields of science and engineering. However, the way they look is deceptive because no one has ever come close to finding the general solution to these equations. Even though a general solution to these equations does not yet exist, the Navier-Stokes equations do help one comprehend the aforementioned problem. Therefore, they do not help naval architects to construct better marine vehicles, aerospace engineers to build better aircrafts and spacecrafts or biomedical engineers to build artificial organs.

Another millennium problem involves finding a solution to the set of equations formulated by Chen-Ning Yang and Robert Mills in 1954 that describe the fundamental forces of nature. This set of equations reveals the description of the raw material out of which everything in the universe has been created. None of these equations have been solved so far. Physicists have gained accurate results and made calculations tested in laboratories based on Yang-Mills equations that could be solved by using computers as in Navier-Stoke equations. Even though these kinds of equations provide physicists with almost all the necessary information, no one has ever been able to solve the Yang-Mills equations by known methods. What is important is not to solve equations; it is to figure out what the solution means instead. Using numbers and making calculations based upon these equations remain secondary despite their importance.

As a result of positivist and materialist approaches to knowledge and science, most people today are interested in science and technology for the sake of their own material wealth and comfort. If this degrading approach continues, worldwide degeneration cannot be prevented. However, mathematics is a universal language generated by mathematical thinking. This type of thinking is one of the qualities of the “inheritors of the earth.” In The Statue of Our Souls (2005), M. Fethullah Gulen says,

In the past the people in Central Asia and later on in the West achieved their renaissances by means of the laws of mathematical thinking. Man discovered and brought to light many uncertain and unknown things in the mysterious world of numbers. Without going to the extremes of the Hurufis,^[1] what we say is that without mathematics it is not possible to understand the relations of humanity and natural phenomena with one another. It illuminates our roads like light on the line that stretches from the universe to life; it indicates to us what is beyond the human horizon, even the depths of the world of contingencies, which is very difficult to think upon; and it makes us meet with our ideals.

On the other hand, being mathematical does not mean knowing everything related to mathematics. It is to think mathematically, to think within mathematical laws, and to be aware that it permeates everything from man’s thoughts to the depths of existence, from physics to metaphysics, from matter to energy; from body to soul, from law to Sufism. In order to comprehend existence completely, we have to accept a dual method of Sufi thinking and scientific research. The West essentially lacks essence, and has tried to compensate for this loss, as far as it can, by taking refuge in mysticism. In our world, which has been always intimate with the soul of Islam, there is no need to look for anything strange or foreign, or to take refuge in anything. We have all our sources of power within our system of thought and faith. That suffices as long as we comprehend that source and spirit with its original richness. Then we will see some of the mysterious relations in existence, how harmoniously such relations run, and reach a different knowledge of observing and taking pleasure in everything.

In short, being mathematical is necessary to describe the universe we live in and the principles of how it runs. This tool will be considered triumphant in as much as it can remove blockages from the individual’s eyes and exhibit the truth. Only if scientists who have attained the harmony of heart and mind penetrate into the secrets of existence, utilizing science and its fruits for the benefit of humanity, will justice be done to their profession.

Being one of the liberal arts, rhetoric can be defined in such a way that is freed from its usual literary references. Thus, rhetoric is an inquiry into the core of the problem, resulting in a “change” in the state of the subject matter from its current state to a preferred one.

Change in a rhetorical inquiry happens by discovery and invention. Discovery is about becoming aware of existence, whereas invention is about finding new connections within existence. Rhetoric is discovery and invention in a sequence of events. A rhetorician first finds a topic with a particular problem; the definition of the topic is the discovery. The rhetorician then searches for possibilities, uses his judgment about facts, questions the problem, and reaches new issues that will become subheadings of topics. Issues are at the heart of an argument. The rhetorician finds solutions to the problem by merging two contrasting issues and allowing them to work together, which results in invention. Having reached the invention, the rhetorician then uses arrangement, expression, memory, and delivery to resolve the rhetorical inquiry. So, the meaning most frequently associated with rhetoric is actually this last step that comes after discovery and invention.

To make my argument clear, I would like to give the example of Muhammad Yunus, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006 “for his efforts to create economic and social development from below” (Nobel Prize Statement). From the perspective of rhetoric, Muhammad Yunus is a perfect example of rhetorical inquiry. He first identifies the problem of poverty in Bangladesh and then defines his topic as economic development. In searching for possibilities, he comes up with the issues of “financial loans” and “poverty.” Normally, financial loans are thought to be designed for people who have financial credibility, while poverty, in general is seen as being removed from economic development.

Muhammad Yunus did not think so. He took these two contrasting issues and merged them, arriving at the micro-credit idea; i.e., that if an institution gives small loans to poor people, this will result in a massive change and economic development, which can help the poor to stand on their feet, helping them to survive and recover from poverty. His idea was realized with the institution of the Grameen Bank, which has provided more than $5.1 billion US dollars to 5.3 million people. To guarantee payment, the bank developed a system called “solidarity groups,” which are small-scale unofficial groups that apply together for loans. The group members act as co-guarantors of repayment, supporting one another’s efforts in economic self-advancement.

To restate, Muhammad Yunus took a rhetorical stance and used it as a way to solve the problem of poverty in his country. His argument was based on two issues, one being poverty, the other financial loans. He merged the two issues and invented the micro-credit concept. The implementation of the idea was dependent on the facts of the situation, whereas judgments of the facts relied on objectivity. The realization of the idea of “loans for the poor” was so successful that it resulted in other activities, such as loans for housing, fisheries, etc.

Another example of a rhetorical invention is that of the Turkish scholar Fethullah Gulen who took the education of individuals as his topic, and inspired people to initiate intercultural dialogue and education institutions in order to eradicate cross-cultural ignorance and misunderstandings in society. The general concept of positivist thinking which drives education is that science and moral values are two separate things that should not be considered together. And when it comes to understanding the other, it is stereotypes that control people’s opinions.

But Fethullah Gulen did not think so. He merged science and moral values, which resulted in educational institutions that teach both of these subjects to the students, while merging different cultures by emphasizing the common moral values in intercultural and interfaith dialogue activities. These educational institutions have been breaking the so-called norms and reaching people from all over the world by providing a highstandard education equal for all. Simultaneously, NGOs that focus on dialogue activities have reached people of different faiths, from Jewish rabbis to Buddhist priests, in order to spread the idea of understanding others.

To restate this example, Fethullah Gulen presents a strong rhetorical stance about the problem of ignorance. He suggests education as the topic, and comes up with sciences, culture, and common values as the issues. To reach possible solutions, he blends these issues, and his teachings provided inspiration for the establishment of the institutions that focus on education and in the NGO’s that focus on dialogue activities. The strength of the educational institutions is their emphasis on equity and brotherhood while keeping a high-level academic approach. An effort that spans the entire world, these schools not only provide modern education to poor and developing countries, but also support the solution to the problem of crosscultural ignorance in the world.

In conclusion, both Muhammed Yunus and Fethullah Gulen have triggered “change” in the world under very different circumstances, one in economics, the other in education, but by using a common tool. This common tool is rhetorical thinking, which is rooted in people’s capability to develop arguments. If we return to the question posed at the beginning it would be easier now to define rhetoric. Rhetoric is an art of invention that has its own methodology and which helps to solve the serious problems of the world over a wide spectrum.

A woman was desperately looking for her lost child, hastily glancing at every child. When she finally found her lost child she embraced him with absolute relief and joy. Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, told his Companions to look at this woman and asked: “Would that woman throw her child into fire?” “No, she would not.” “By God, He is more merciful than she.” As this hadith very clearly indicates, we are born into the loving hands of our mothers and cared for by the Eternal Mercy of God. In this issue we feature “Love for Humankind,” in which a thorough definition of love is presented, as the strongest chain that binds humans one to another.

Intelligence is a great gift as long as it is used for serving the truth. When we reflect upon the creation, when we view the world around us through the eyes of wisdom, the feeling of love will blossom within our hearts spontaneously. Everything in this vast universe has been and continues to be fashioned perfectly. Even if we have never heard about what scientists call the “Golden Ratio,” we are somehow aware of the aesthetic beauty found everywhere in nature, be it a pine cone or the design of the human finger. Even within the smallest thing in nature, miracles are hidden. If we raise our gaze to the sky, the huge celestial bodies moving through space are no less amazing. One cannot help but ask how did it all begin? Where are all they heading? And more importantly, where are “we” heading?

The human mind has always been busy with questions about the universe, about death, about the meaning of life and other such subjects. We have made countless inventions and we even feel that we are coming close to the day when we will be able to make artificial intelligence that is able to think as we do. Even though we still have not been able to produce robots that think like people, we have unfortunately invented a machine which can turn our children into robots; the television, although an invention with many uses, is an invention that can also be harmful.

Our hope for the future is ever-growing. We feel the support of our readers with the increasing number of subscribers to The Fountain Magazine; we hope that with this interest, as we learn more about this world and about how this world is perceived by all of us, the interest in love, tolerance, and dialog with our fellow human beings will continue to develop.

There has been strong opposition to the idea. The issue was discussed in the U.S. and Europe as long ago as the early 20th century. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that: ‘anything under the sun made by man’ is patentable. The court considered a distinction between a product of nature and a product of human invention or intervention as the decisive factor, rather than the distinction between sentient life and insentient matter. In ex Parte Allen, the Board of Appeal held that an oyster was patentable because it had been genetically altered by human intervention. In the end of the U.S. Patent Office ruled non-naturally occurring non-human multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable. More recently, in 1988, Harvard University was granted a patent on a transgenic mammal named ‘Once Mouse’.

Is the situation any different in Europe? In Germany, inventions in the field of biology were not, in principle, excluded from patent protection, the Federal Supreme Court decided in the Red Dove. The European Patent Convention or EPC, signed in Munich and ratified in 1977, came into force on 1 June 1978 in the member states. Article 53 of the EPC provides that European patents shall not be granted in respect of:

a. inventions, the publication or exploitation of which would be contrary to ‘public order’ or morality, provided that the exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the contracting states;

b. plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals. This provision does not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof.

This article contains three exceptions to patentability of plant and animals.

1. Animal varieties and plant varieties.

2. Essentially biological processes for the production of plant and animals.

3. Inventions which are contrary to ‘public order’ or ‘morality’.

1. What is the meaning of the term variety?

This question was debated by the Examining Division’s decision (EPOR 4 (1990)) in regard to Once Mouse. The application was made by Harvard University for a patent for a genetically modified animal which was to be used to cure cancer.

The application was refused:

a. on the grounds of non-reproducibility under Article 83 of the EPC. Although the application was based on claims related to all non-human mammalian animals, actual tests had only been done on mice: it could not be assumed that the same manipulation could be successfully performed on other mammals without inventive skill; and,

b. on the grounds that the legislators had intended to exclude animals in general from patentability under Article 53 (b).

However the Board of Appeal did not see any reason to limit the claims under Article 83. Also, the Board did not agree with the Examining Division’s interpretation of Art 53 (b) as excluding animals as such from patent protection. They pointed out that the legislators must have intended the phrase ‘animal varieties’ to be more narrowly construed than ‘animals’. The Board, therefore, held the question to the Examining Division.

On reconsideration, the Division decided that ‘Once Mouse’ did not fall under the terms of the ‘variety’ exemption. It concluded that in relation to Article 53 (b) claims directed to non-human mammals generally did not fall within the scope of the terms ‘animal variety’, (race animale).

The ‘variety’ exemption was also considered in the Giba-Geiy Case by the Technical Board of Appeal.

In- this case, the claimed invention satisfied the requirements of patentability but the Examining Division refused to grant a patent because the subject matter fall into scope of the Art. 53 (b).

Contrary to the Division’s view, the Europe Patent Office (EPO) Technical Board argued that 53(b) excludes only plant varieties and it is clear that ‘plant’ is different from ‘plant varieties’. According to the Board, ‘plant variety’ means stability of characteristics within specific tolerances after every individual propagation or propagation cycle. The Board of heed that 53(b) excludes ‘only the plants or their propagating material in the fixed form of the plant variety.’

2. Another problematic clause under Article 53(b) concerns ‘essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals’ which are excluded with the proviso that ‘this exclusion does not apply to microbiological processes or products thereof’.

Two main question arises here. Firstly: what differentiates ‘essentially biological processes’ from ‘microbiological processes’?

Llewelyn has assumed that ‘an essentially biological process could be defined, most simply, as one where natural methods are the dominant influence’. The EPO defined ‘essentially biological process’ as dependent on the extent to which there is technical intervention by man in the process. If such intervention plays a significant part in determining or controlling the result the process will not be an ‘essentially biological’ one.

It has been held by the EPO Board, in the context of plants in Lubrizal/Hybrid Plants, that the meaning of ‘essentially biological process’ must be judged on the basis of the essence of the invention, taking into account the totality of human intervention and its impact on the result achieved.’ Human intervention may also mean that the process is not ‘a purely biological’ one even though the intervention made by only a trivial contribution.

The Draft Directive established a new and different approach, namely that a distinction must be made between naturally occurring substance itself and the product in a useful form, which results from human intervention in isolating it from its natural environment.

Art 53(b) says that ‘essentially biological processes’ are not patentable but the Draft Directive provides that this only covers traditional biological breeding activities thereby and rescues the interventions in ‘essentially biological process’ from non-patentability.

The most significant element of Article 53(b) is its inclusion of the products of microbiological processes. This means that a plant or animal produced by a ‘microbiological process’ falls outside the scope of the exclusionary provision of Art 53 (b) and is therefore patentable. It could be said that the aim was specifically to enable products of microbiological processes to be patented, i.e. all genetically engineered plant and animal.

Again, the problem is one precise definition. How does one decide that a process which has been carried out is a ‘microbiological’ one? EPO guidelines explain that ‘microbiological’ covers the processes used by micro-organisms and processes used for producing micro-organisms. Also, ‘micro-organism’ includes material such as plasmids and viruses (which have been used to create new plant genetic matter) and cell lines. All such process are patentable. The Draft Directive similarly rules (in its Article 5) that processes which either use or operate upon a micro-organism, or result in a micro-organism, should be considered microbiological and thus eligible for patent. It goes further: ‘the word micro-organism shall be interpreted in its broadest sense as including all microbiological entities capable of replication, e.g. as comprising, inter alia, bacterium fungi . . . and cells.’

3. The third exception is on the grounds of immorality. Art 53 (a) provides that a patent should not be granted in respect of inventions, the publication or exploitation of which would be contrary to ‘Public Order’ or ‘morality’. In other words, if the public considers an invention ‘immoral’ a patent would not be granted.

But, the Examining Division ruled in regard to ‘Once Mouse’ that irrespective of whether the public considered it moral or immoral, such inventions incontrovertibly assisted mankind in the care of ‘widespread and dangerous’ diseases. The Technical Board of Appeal pointed out in its recommendations to the Division that the possible suffering to animals and risks to the environment should be balanced against the invention’s usefulness in meeting human needs (diagnosis, treatment, food supply for a rapidly growing world population) on the other hand. The Division stated that ‘the invention would reduce the overall level of animal suffering by reducing the number of animals used in conventional animal testing.

Considerable doubts remain. Whether or not ‘Once Mouse’ may help save people dying from cancer, who is to guarantee that mice or other animals will not be manipulated to which achieve a cure for baldness or other trivial (but commercially ‘compelling’) purpose. What is the excuse for creating a very unhappy, transgenic rat to cure a widespread but non-lethal condition such as acne?

Genetic engineering should be the subject of general legislation rather than ‘patent law’ especially in respect of ‘immorality’. 

Conclusion

The development of new features in plants and animals using microbiological methods is a long, difficult, expensive process with no guarantee for success. Therefore patents which have been granted by appropriate and competent bodies need to cover not only the first generation of the altered animals or plants but also their progeny which are then the result of natural breeding: and this was allowed in the claims of the Harvard Patent.

Despite strong arguments on several grounds, a new invention related to living matter should not be prevented from securing a patent. It is also our view that the distinction between patentable and non-patentable should be made on the basis of human intervention (especially in relation to microbiological processes) rather than on the basis of sentient or insentient matter.

However the patentability of human life or any part of human life must always be regarded as unacceptable in principle because human life should not be subject to commercialism: it would open the way to a new form of slavery.

• References
• CHRISRIE, A. (1989) ‘Patent for plant innovation’ EIPR, 3.
• CORREA, C. (1992) ‘Biological resources and intellectual property rights’ EIPR, 5.
• NOTT, R. (1992) ‘Patent protection for plant and animals’ EIPR, 3, p.79.
• PAVER, M. (1992) ‘All animals are patentable but some are more patentable than others’, Patent World, March, 9.
• WHAITE, R.& JONES, N. (1989) ‘Biotechnological patent in Europe’, The Draft Directive, EIPR, 5.