In spite of the developments in science and technology, we are still so powerless at predicting phenomena; there is so little we can control and uncertainties are so many. We do not face the challenge of uncertainties at predicting happenings but also at decision-making. While we make decisions in daily life we try to minimize uncertainties. Any decision that holds uncertainties in its nature is risky. Therefore, decision-making processes are a kind of risk management at the same time. All the efforts are directed toward reducing the possible risks and mistakes. High-risk problems have a higher ratio of mistakes.

Studies of forecast need collecting numeric data and analyzing them along with obtaining relevant information based on observations. The data to be collected should be objective and the statistical methods appropriate. Otherwise, unsuccessful forecasts will lead to waste of time, money, and resources. Decision problems with uncertainties can be of different nature. For example, it is possible to reckon when an apple which broke off from its branch will reach the ground by knowing physical laws. As factors get more complicated, possibility of surprises is much higher. The discipline which systematizes these studies is econometrics. Statistics, mathematics, economics, optimization, decision-making, and computer science fall within the studies of econometrics. Forecast problems are mainly studied with numeric and extrapolative analyses.

In recent years, intuitive methods have been added to these two major approaches. Along with other issues, numeric analysis is frequently used in artificial neural networks, computer simulations, and computer-based learning methods. Artificial neural networks are formed by trying to model the millions of neurons in human brain work. The artificial cells whose number varies between five to ten are educated by using a certain mathematical transformation function, with recurring algorithmic processes. At the end of the process of education with past data, the performances of the calculations in new situations are evaluated. This method, which is used at various forecast problems, is really meaningful in terms of reflecting what can be done by merely copying a few of the millions of human nerves. However, the greatest obstacle before the studies of artificial neural networks are the computers with insufficient capacity. Even super computer systems have difficulty in an optimization problems with more than a hundred cells and the data obtained is far from useable. One cannot help but amaze at the perfect capacity of human brain and how it tackles hundreds of parallel processes incessantly. In some decision-making problems, due to insufficient numeric data, the parameters targeted to be forecast may not be reliable and present a peculiar nature. The studies about very rare diseases and forecasting technological developments are examples to that. In such cases, numeric analyses do not help because of not having any reliable numeric data. Therefore, extrapolative analysis methods are preferred at such forecast problems. At forecasts based on extrapolation, the expert’s level of knowledge, intuition, experience, capacity of processing information, and power of judgment are important but they remain limited. There are lots of forecast problems about socioeconomic life such as economic fluctuations, price moves, and commercial size. Healthy forecasts on how and when to make investments are very important in order for the investors’ determining how to utilize their resources. However, the investors’ decisions will inevitably have uncertainties to a great degree. Therefore, it can be said that studies of forecasting are still in the cradle.

No matter of what quality, forecasts are always needed, since expectations for the future need to be determined and met. One of the basic assumptions of the economic system that make its effect felt in the global scale is that, human beings are self-centered creatures who act on opportunist drives. Such philosophies have always impelled people to be egocentric. However, people can listen to their conscience instead. They can simply choose to be altruistic; they can choose to care about others and help them. It is possible to reverse such an understanding of selfishness by giving charity and fulfilling other responsibilities. Thus, the forecasts about the future depend on what is to be given priority. In other words, the science of forecast can serve a more humane philosophy.

Everything is finely balanced with appropriate measures in this universe. Everything is created with wisdom. From the perspective of forecasting studies, our efforts can in a way be seen as guesswork to learn about destiny. Although we can try to make predictions within certain limits, we can never ignore possible surprises which take place totally out of our control. Human beings are equipped with an ability to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. We are supposed to comprehend the philosophy of creation and try to discern the meaning of the pattern being woven by Providence.

Ertugrul Deniz is a freelance writer from Turkey with a PhD degree in mathematics.

References

• Makridakis, Spyros; Wheelwright, Steven; Hyndman, Rob J. (1998). Forecasting: methods and applications, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Fama, Eugene (1970). “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work”. Journal of Finance 25 (2): 383–417.

Today, more than 1 billion people are suffering from the lack of potable water. About 2.3 billion people (41 percent of the earth’s population) live in regions with water scarcity; this number is estimated to be 3.5 billion by 2025.1

96.5 percent of the world’s water is found in seas and oceans, and the remainder is found as ice caps, brackish water, and fresh water sources (e.g. lakes, rivers, and ground waters). To overcome water shortage problems, methods such as water conservation and dam construction have been applied for several years, but they are not enough against increasing water demand and decreasing fresh water sources.2

Water is also very important for generating energy, and vice versa. The largest portion of U.S. electric production is provided by thermoelectric power generation, where steam-driven turbine generators are used to generate electricity. In 2000, thermoelectric power plants used 39 percent of all fresh water sources in the United States.3 All these reasons make the production of drinking water a worldwide issue.

Desalination

Since most of world’s water supply is found in oceans and seas, desalination is the process of removing salts and minerals from either ocean or brackish water to make it safe for human consumption and use. The most widely applied desalination processes are divided into two main categories, thermal distillation processes and membrane processes.

Desalination via thermal distillation methods, which separate liquid mixtures based on their boiling points, mainly fall into three categories: multi-stage flash (MSF), multi-effect distillation (MED), and mechanical vapor compression (MVC). Thermal distillation processes require the evaporation of water while leaving the salt in a concentrated brine. Middle Eastern countries mainly use thermal-based desalination plants to produce fresh water because of their easily accessible fossil fuel sources.2, 4

Membrane-based separations are the main choice of producing potable water in countries outside the Middle East. More than 50 percent of the newly installed desalination plants have been using reverse osmosis (RO) membrane technology (since 2001).2

Membrane separations

A membrane is an interphase between two adjacent phases acting as a selective barrier, regulating the transport of substances between the two compartments. It is a very thin film that allows passage of some types of substances while preventing the passage of other substances, depending on their sizes. Membranes used for separation technology gave rise to an interdisciplinary area including many fields of science and engineering such as chemistry, chemical engineering, material science, process engineering, environmental science, ecology, and economics.5, 6 Today, the membrane industry is impressively large. The membrane separation technology market is quite diverse and ranges from medicine to the chemical industry, and the most important markets are medical devices and water treatment. There was a $2 billion sale of synthetic membranes worldwide in 2003.6

Water purification membranes

Water treatment processes employ several types of membranes. They include microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. They are designed to remove materials of increasing sizes. MF membranes have the largest pore size and typically reject large particles and various microorganisms. UF membranes have smaller pores than MF membranes and, therefore, in addition to large particles and microorganisms, they can reject bacteria and soluble macromolecules such as proteins. RO membranes are effectively nonporous and therefore exclude particles and even many low molar mass species such as salt ions, organic substances, etc.7 NF membranes are relatively new and are sometimes called “loose” RO membranes. They are porous membranes, but since the pores are ten of angstroms or less, they exhibit performance between that of RO and UF membranes.8 Of these membranes, NF and RO membranes constitute the dominant technology for desalination of water.9

2.1 Nanofiltration Membranes

Membranes for nanofiltration (NF) are usually comprised of cellulose acetate or aromatic polyamides. NF allows diffusion of organic compounds, and rejects some salts with low pressures being applied. NF itself cannot purify seawater to drinking water standards, but it is a process that can be used to produce mildly salty water, or as a water-softening technique.2, 4 When NF is coupled with RO, then it can be used to turn seawater into drinking water.10

Nanofiltration membranes usually have negative charges (e.g., carboxylate groups, sulfonate groups, etc.), and as a result, ion repulsion is a major factor in determining salt rejection. More highly charged ions, such as sulfate, are more highly rejected than monovalent ions, such as chloride, by a negatively charged nanofiltration membrane. In particular, NF membranes are used to remove divalent ions such as calcium and magnesium, which are mainly responsible for water hardness. These membranes also usually display good rejection of organic compounds with molecular weights above 200 to 500 grams.2,11,12

2.2 Reverse osmosis membranes

Osmosis is a natural process in which water molecules move across a semipermeable membrane from a lower solute concentration area to the higher solute concentration area. Water flows until a chemical potential equilibrium of water is established. When equilibrium is reached, the pressure difference between the two sides of the membrane is equal to the osmotic pressure of the solution.12

Reverse osmosis (RO) is the process of forcing water from a region of high solute concentration through a membrane to a region of low solute concentration by applying a pressure that is greater than the osmotic pressure. As a result, separation of water from the solution occurs as pure water from the high concentration side to the low concentration side. The RO process includes a feed water source, feed pre-treatment, a high-pressure pump, RO membrane modules and post-treatment steps.

RO membranes are capable of rejecting monovalent ions such as sodium and chloride, which makes the RO process a valuable method for desalination. Membranes used for RO processes have salt rejections of more than 99 percent. RO membranes do not have distinct pores, but rather rely on free volume within the polymer film.

RO membrane separations depend highly on the properties of the polymer film such as the chemical and physical structure of the membrane material. Desired RO membranes should be resistant to chemical substances and microbial organisms, stable over a long time both mechanically and structurally, and have ideal separation properties such as high water flux, high salt rejection, chlorine, and fouling (clogging of membrane pores) resistance.

Approximately one billion of six billion people in the world live in water-stressed areas, and RO membrane technology is the leading desalination technology to overcome the problem of insufficient clean water and estimated to continue its leadership in the near future.13 Scientists and engineers are extensively investigating the development of the most efficient membrane desalination technology to produce the cheapest potable water.

On the other hand, cells use membranes, though scientists do not try to further develop them, since they were already designed in a perfect manner. Cellular membranes have a phospholipid structure with embedded proteins. They control many different kinds of transportations of substances in and out of cells (e.g. sugar, drugs, ions). They are so well designed that they know which substances are helpful or harmful for the cell, and decide on the passage of substances based on that. Many researchers have tried countless times for many years to produce an equally wonderful membrane technology for making clean water. But cellular membranes, consisting of hundreds of functions in living organisms, do not form spontaneously.

REFERENCES

1) R.F. Service, Freshwater resources, desalination freshens up. Science, (2006). 313, 1088- 1090.

2) L.F. Greenlee, D.F.Lawler, B.D. Freeman, B. Marrot, P. Moulin, Reverse osmosis desalination: Water sources, technology and today’s challenges. Water Research (2009), 43, 2317-2348.

3) T.J. Feeley, T.J. Skone, G.J.Stiegel, A. McNemar, M.Nemeth, B. Schimmoller, J.T. Murphy, L. Manfredo, Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry.Energy (2008), 33, 1-11.

4) G. A. Tularam, M. Ilahee, Environmental concerns of desalinating seawater using reverse osmosis. J. Environ. Monit.(2007), 9, 805–813.

5) P. Vandezande, L. E. M. Gevers, I. F. J. Vankelecom, Solvent resistant nanofiltration: separating on a molecular level. Chem. Soc. Rev.(2008), 37, 365–405.

6) M. Ulbricht, Advanced functional polymer membranes. Polymer (2006), 47, 2217–2262.

7) R.H. Perry, D.W.Green, Eds., Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, 1997.

8) Sagle, A., and B. Freeman, “Fundamentals of Membranes for Water Treatment,” in The Future of Desalination in Texas: Volume 2, Report Number 363, Texas Water Development Board, Austin, TX, pp. 137-154 (2004).

9) H.B.Park, B.D.Freeman, Z.Zhang, M.Sankir, J.E.McGrath, Highly Chlorine-Tolerant Polymers for Desalination, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2008), 47, 6019-6024.

10) N. Hilal, H. Al-Zoubi, N. A. Darwish, A. W. Mohammad, M. Abu Arabi, A comprehensive review of nanofiltration membranes: Treatment, pretreatment, modelling, and atomic force microscopy, Desalination (2004), 170, 281-308.

11) A. Gorenflo, D. Velazquez-Padron, F.H. Frimmel, Nanofiltration of a German groundwater of high hardness and NOM content: performance and costs. Desalination (2002), 151, 253-265.

12) M.E.Williams, A Brief Review of Reverse Osmosis Membrane Technology,EET Corporation and Williams Engineering Services Company, Inc., Harriman, TN, 2003.

13) K. P. Lee, T. C. Arnot, D. Mattia, A Review of Reverse Osmosis Membrane Materials for Desalination – Development to Date and Future Potential. J. Membr. Sci. 370 (2011) 1-22.

In a study conducted by social psychologists Tversky and Kahneman, people were asked to guess the percentage of African nations that were members of the United Nations. Two groups were first asked to estimate whether this number was lower or higher than a threshold: the first group was asked whether it is more or less than 45 percent and the second group was asked whether it is more or less than 65 percent. Then both groups were asked to give their estimates of the actual percentage. The researchers demonstrated that the group that was given the lower threshold estimated a lower value for the actual percentage of African nations that are members of the United Nations. The group that was given the higher threshold estimated a higher percentage. The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation. A bias in the estimation of African members of the United Nations may not sound like a big deal, but how about decisions that affect people’s lives seriously?

Consider sentencing in court trials. Social psychologist Mussweiler and colleagues asked trial judges with more than 15 years of experience to consider sentencing demands made by non-experts in a legal crime case before issuing a final sentence. The two sentencing demands were 34 months and 12 months. The judges, despite their experience and despite the fact that the crime was the same, were influenced by the demands. Judges who considered the high demand of 34 months prior to their decision gave final sentences that were almost 8 months longer than judges who considered a low demand of 12 months initially. If prior exposure to a piece of information can make a difference as much as 8 more months in prison, then we ought to know what is going on. The examples above illustrate a psychological heuristic known as “anchoring and adjustment.” The heuristic suggests that when faced with a decision-making or estimation situation, people start with an anchor, or a reference point, and make adjustments to it to reach their final estimate. The anchor serves as a first approximation and then the person makes adjustments to it to reach a final estimate or decision. Why does the human mind utilize this heuristic? The answer is simple—we do not always have a whole lot of information to reach an accurate estimate or best decision.

Therefore, the mind sometimes needs shortcuts, especially under pressing circumstances. To understand this process, let’s have a look at the limitations of human cognition. Models of human cognition Cognitive psychologists and sociologists have worked to develop models of human social cognition. These models emphasize four aspects of our social cognition, which is the way we perceive others. The first is the role of prior knowledge versus information immediately available. For example, when we see a policeman directing the traffic, we use our prior knowledge in our perception. We may assume that he is carrying a gun and he has communications equipment to talk with his station. We deduce these features from our prior knowledge about the traffic police, even if we may not be in a position to observe that particular policeman’s gun or communications device. Relying on prior information in our judgments is called “top-down” processing as opposed to “bottom-up” or data-driven processing. Typically, relying on top-down processing, such as relying on stereotypes, requires fewer processing resources.

The second aspect is the limitation of our cognitive processing capacity. The human cognitive system is modeled to consist of our sensory organs, a sensory register (memory) that temporarily stores our perceptions of external stimuli, a short-term memory, a long-term memory, attention resources and executive control processes. When we receive information in the form of audio-visual or other sensory stimuli, they are processed by our cognitive system and transferred to our short-term memory. Through a process of encoding and categorization, the information is organized and stored in the long-term memory. A part of the long-term memory is “active” or readily accessible. Our further use of information in our long-term memory activates the information, and the lack of use deactivates it, making it less readily accessible. Our behavioral response results from our processing of information. According to this information-processing model of human cognition, the amount of information that can be processed by our cognitive system is restricted in terms of storage, flow and inference (Huitt, 2003).

The third aspect is the amount of cognitive processing that is determined by capacity (amount of free resources) and motivation. Factors such as interest, importance, and relevance determine the motivation to allocate more cognitive resources. We are more likely to devote more cognitive processing resources to subjects that are more interesting, important or relevant in our judgment. The fourth aspect is the interplay between automatic and controlled processing. Automatic processes require fewer resources. Given our limited processing capacity, time and other types of constraints have consequences for our cognitive processing. Under constraints, most individuals tend to simplify their processing by relying on less information, relying on automatic cognitive processes as opposed to conscious ones, or relying on prior information as opposed to information available in the circumstances. Anchoring is one such a simplification. The nature of the situation we are facing will determine which of these mechanisms will be selected. They will be reused or abandoned depending on whether they provide a sound basis for our responses to the social environment. If the simplifications lead to interpretations that harm us, we are likely to abandon them. If, on the other hand, there is no harm or there is a benefit, then we are likely to reuse those simplifications.

Anchoring effect Anchoring is defined as the effect of a prior judgment of an object, the anchor, on our future judgments regarding another object. These judgments may be about a numerical value, a probability, or even a moral or legal judgment. As an example, consider the situation where people are asked whether the population of a city is greater than or smaller than a value. Let’s say two groups of people are asked the same question with two anchors: Group A is asked whether the population of Houston is more than or less than 500,000. Group B is asked whether the population of Houston more than or less than 2,000,000. In this example, the values of 500,000 and 2,000,000 serve as anchors. Both groups are then asked: What is your estimate of the population of Houston? Experiments indicate that the people who were given the lower anchor on average give a lower estimate for the population and vice versa. How does anchoring happen? Cognitive psychologists tell us that human judgment is essentially relative or comparison based, even if we are not asked to make a comparison explicitly. So, in evaluating the present object or person, our minds search for an anchor. A particular anchor may be selected because it is readily accessible, because it is suggested to us, or “self-generated via an insufficient adjustment process” (Mussweiler et al). Our prior cognitive processing of the anchor increases the accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge, which influences our subsequent judgments. For example, when we meet a person from a country, the first person we met from that country may become our anchor. If we had a positive experience with the first person, we are likely to interpret the actions of this new person with a positive light. While cognitive heuristics such as anchoring help us make quick decisions under constraints, they may also lead to errors. The price we pay for the economy provided by the heuristics is “systematically biased judgments under certain conditions.” (Bless et al., p. 24). For instance, a car dealer may offer you a very high price as an anchor and ask you to make a counter offer. Experiments have demonstrated that under such circumstances, the value of the initial offer has a significant effect on what people will be willing to pay for the final price of the car. If the initial offer is very high, the customer is likely to accept a higher negotiated price and vice versa. The anchoring effect can also be observed when we take a few characteristics of a person and consciously or subconsciously fit them to a stereotype.

In such cases, we may misperceive their motivations or misunderstand their circumstances. Sometimes the anchor can be manipulated by some person other than ourselves, as in the case of the car dealer. Sometimes, we may pick the anchor unintentionally based on information obtained from the mass media. As the mass media tend to focus on rare events that tend to be negative, the stereotypes formed based on information solely derived from the mass media may be misleading (Said, 1997). What are some of the lessons we can derive from our discussion of the anchoring effect? For one, we need to point the mirror at ourselves and ask: Are we forming stereotypes of others that may be inaccurate? Are we influenced by the anchoring effect in our judgment of other people? To see whether we may have anchors for evaluating people of different backgrounds consider your initial thoughts about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, Russians, Asians, Africans, Mexicans, etc. Are these anchors based on scientific data or news media coverage of events or personal encounters with one or more individuals? It may be infeasible to try to collect encyclopedic information about every nationality, religion, or culture that we encounter. But in matters that impact our society we ought to do a better job of researching a diversity of resources. But perhaps a more important lesson is this—the anchoring effect is here to stay as part of the reality of human cognition. If we would like to provide accurate, reliable information to people about ourselves, our culture and values, we should reach them before they form a negative anchor or stereotype. If we would like our cultural background, religion, or values to be understood without distortion, we need to reach out to as many people as possible around us and interact with them. We need to hold conversations, and share meaningful experiences with them to anchor their future judgments in an accurate reference point. The anchoring effect is demonstrated to be pervasive and robust in psychology. It is not likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. However, we do have the opportunity to reach out and help form positive anchors for better human relationships.

Further reading

• Bless, H., Fiedler, K., Strack, F. 2004. Social Cognition, New York: Taylor and Francis.
• Huitt, W. 2003. The Information Processing Approach to Cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. 2001. The Semantics of Anchoring. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86, 234–255.
• Said, E. 1997. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, New York: Random House.

Man can attain inner depth as much as he can discern himself correctly.

It is a well-observed fact that in our lives we have no input or choice in choosing the place and time of our birth, the parents we have, the name we are given, our race or color, or even the time and place of our death. Most of the time, we do not even have control over whom we meet. Most importantly, it was not us who made the decision to be ourselves; our father produced millions of sperm, only one was permitted to fertilize of our mother’s egg. Moreover, we could have not been human at all, but some other animal or plant. Therefore, one can say that we, ourselves per se, have no power in choosing the most important determinants in our lives.

Let us think about our bodily functions. Which biological processes can we control on our own? In reality, none. We cannot control the complex functions of our cells or our organs, our breathing, our digestion, or our hormonal cycles. In fact, these processes occur without us realizing that they are taking place in our body. What about the world in which we live? We do not and cannot control the perfect process of photosynthesis (i.e., the chemical processes that lead to the production of oxygen on this planet) in leaves and other green organisms, the natural occurrence of animals and plants upon which we depend, the water cycle, the movement of clouds, or even the formation of rain. Maybe it would be good to imagine a world without photosynthesis: we would not have enough oxygen; we would suffocate within a couple of hours. It is humbling to know that we cannot even make the oxygen upon which we depend for each and every breath.

What about the process of eating? Many times, without thinking deeply enough we say, “I ate.” However, if we analyze the situation carefully with insight and deep thought, we will come to a conclusion that we do not “eat,” we are fed. How is this possible? First of all, we cannot control the movement of muscles in our arm. Studying the mechanisms of muscle contraction in biology makes this evident. Muscle contraction is a very complex process that no human can interfere with, as countless chemical processes take place in our muscles to enable our hand to move, pick up our food, and place it in our mouth. The biochemistry of muscle contraction involves the interaction of calcium ions and calcium-binding proteins and the energy currency of living cells, adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Without the necessary co-ordinate interactions between these biochemical entities, muscle fibers cannot contract. Yet these countless enzymes and proteins that we depend on for life are built in our bodies without our power or knowledge.

The chewing process is equally complex. What if our jaw muscles locked-would it be possible to move our jaw to chew the food? In fact, the complexity of all these processes is so great that the possibility of error is very high. Yet 99.9999…% of the time, they are perfectly effective. However, in contradiction to this basic fact, we seem oblivious and unaware that it is not us who is directly involved in bringing about our actions, as we say, “I did it,” or “I achieved it.”

It is interesting that classical Sufism sees the human body as a transient palace, as a home kept in order by the great host; by a Creator; who built the body to serve the human soul placed inside it. We can also come to this conclusion by reflecting profoundly on the realities of our beings. More often than not, however, we take for granted the complexity of ‘simple’ movement (or service), such as that of our fingers, hands, and arms, occurrences that happen everyday, at every moment of our lives. This does not mean, however, that we are not responsible for our actions. Our responsibility lies in the innermost intentions, thoughts, and motives behind these actions, which will finally determine the true consequences or fruits of our behavior.

There is a very thought-provoking verse in the Holy Qur’an: Truly, mankind is very unjust and very ignorant (Ahzab 33:72). This verse is a poignant summary of the true human condition, because the human consciousness is so weak that it forgets its own ignorance and dependence, and thus becomes arrogant. In reality, however, our needs are endless and we are inherently unable to meet them ourselves. There are endless things we want to do, yet we are so dependent on the help of a force far beyond us that we cannot achieve them ourselves. And all the while, our enemies−arrogance, revenge, hatred, racism, prejudice, envy, vanity, miserliness−are countless. The central duty of a human being boils down to appreciating these processes so as to recognize the inherent inability, weakness, and powerlessness of the self, and to submit to the sole power that is able to control them: the Creator.

Understanding the true identity of the self in the guest-house of the body is the key to solving “the mystery of our existence.”¹ The self provides us with a ‘mirror,’ a reflector that directs us to our Creator and His attributes and that serves to assess our relationship with the Lord and the rest of existence. The “I” is the mysterious entity that sees and understands the Creator as the one with endless knowledge, mercy, power, wisdom, sight, and hearing. The “I” can understand that just as it can “own,” or take care of a house or a child, the Creator owns and takes care of the entire universe. Likewise, the “I” can come to similar conclusions with respect to “its” sight, hearing, compassion, caring, love, and so on. In this manner, the “I” acts like a pointer to a greater truth and reality above itself. Similarly, when the “I” observes the universe, the knowledge it gains enlightens and widens the mind, while it makes the heart softer and more caring. Having achieved this state of unity of mind and heart, “I” becomes a servant of the One who sent it to this world and who sustains it. Moreover, the same unity of mind and heart necessitates being in the service of life and mankind.

However, when the “I” becomes oblivious to its purpose for existence, it becomes a despotic tyrant, destroying and abusing not only itself but also everything else around it (think about some of the world leaders in the first half of the 20th century). Such an “I” grants itself ownership and sovereignty. Likewise, it grants independent ownership of everyone else to themselves, so that the whole world comes to think that they independently, “own” their “self.” The Qur’an calls this action “a tremendous wrong” (Luqman 31:13).

History is filled with scenarios that confirm these two sides or branches of “I.” The Prophets represent the “I” that submitted to the Creator, while the other branch represents the “I” that turned away from the Creator. One is the way of true guidance, while the other is the basis of materialism and atheism, where all existence is described as being composed of matter that is thought to be “absolute.” By giving the attributes of the Creator to matter, mankind commits the greatest crime possible and opens the doors of oppression against his self. Prophethood, on the other hand, teaches mankind to see nature as a collection of divine laws laid by the Creator and illustrating His power; “cause and effect” is a veil covering the reality of His Will. In an active and endless lesson to mankind, the Prophets also teach that the purpose and duty of man is to achieve virtuous character by knowing his own weaknesses and by seeking help from the power of his Creator. He does this by knowing his needs and trusting in the mercy of the Creator and by knowing his faults and seeking His pardon and forgiveness while always praising the perfection of His attributes and actions.

Based on a hadith,² classical Muslim scholars described the root cause of a diseased soul to have excessive love and attachment to this world and self-satisfaction. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi referred to such love as “poisoned honey.” Love for the sake of the worldly pleasures, and the love of power and authority are part of love for this world. The desire to dominate others is as destructive to a human soul as water is to iron. While the diseased soul sees itself as adequate and self-satisfied, perhaps even believing itself to be better than other souls, the soul that knows itself to be inadequate and needy is dissatisfied with itself and ceaselessly seeks to achieve a more virtuous character.

We conclude this matter with the words of a classical Turkish “dervish” or scholar, Yunus Emre, who lived many centuries ago in Central Anatolia:

Knowledge is for knowing the Truth
Knowledge is for knowing the self
If you do not know yourself, then
What a worthless act you commit.

Notes

1. Nursi, Said. The Words, Thirtieth Word, The Risale-i Nur Collection.
2. Love of the world is the source of all errors and sins (Bayhaqi, 7,338).

Photosynthesis

To fully gain an insight into these interactions’ complexity, we must conduct an in-depth study and observation of the processes taking place. Initially, the sun’s released energy must be made useful to our body’s cells, for direct sunlight on its own is not useful. Energy from the sun, along with water from the soil and carbon dioxide released from all living organisms, synthesizes oxygen and sugars (including glucose) within the leaves of green plants. This seemingly simple but very complex process is called photosynthesis. Without the oxygen and glucose required to generate usable energy (in the form of ATP* molecules), no human or plant cells could survive, although some exceptions are known.(2) Hence, all photosynthetic organisms on Earth an indispensable sources of oxygen for all life-forms.

The two main sources of oxygen are rain forests and oceans, where green algae and photosynthetic bacteria live.(3) In fact, algae lying 120 meters beneath the Antarctic ice is fully equipped to serve life. These algae have been found in sponges with a system of fiber optics that allows them to gather the minute amount of light reaches the Antarctic Ocean’s murky depths and direct it to photosynthetic algae.(4) Given this, we must say that photosynthetic life-forms are in complete submission to and serve other life-forms, among them humanity.

Plant and tree leaves are optimally designed, both physically and biochemically, to generate vital oxygen and sugars. A leaf’s large surface area is required for the optimal interception of solar energy, while the thin cross-section is essential for the fast transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide in and out of the leaf.

Specific photosynthetic cells are arranged in between the leaf’s two protective epidermal layers. Carbon dioxide and oxygen molecules, under specific guidance, leave the leaf through specific pores flanked by cellular gates or guard cells situated underneath each leaf, as the leaf’s upper layer is covered with a protective waxy layer. This waxy layer is essential, for without it the leaf would dry up. For example, on hot days 100 gallons of water are lost from cottonwood trees.(5)

All evaporated water is collected as clouds (water vapor near the condensation point), from which pure, condensed water falls as rain. Likewise, all animals’ breath contains water vapor (released during the breakdown of glucose for energy release), which is also created as clouds and recruited as a moving source of potential water for all needy plants and living organisms.

Water’s continual recycling between the land and oceans to the clouds prevents wastage and provides a continually renewed source of fresh water to synthesize oxygen during photosynthesis. It also serves as a medium in which all biochemical reactions must take place in living cells.

Moreover, a leaf has no knowledge or power to generate oxygen and sugars, which are vital for all living cells, for it has never seen or experienced any direct contact. For carbon synthesis to occur, oxygen atoms must be torn from water and carbon dioxide molecules. This requires knowledge and power, since neither solar energy nor a leaf possess these. Also sugars, an indispensable food source for all life-forms, cannot be synthesized by coincidence in a weak and powerless leaf.

This complementary relationship indicates that all these simultaneous interconnections could only take place according to a program dictated through an all-pervading knowledge, willpower, and mercy. Likewise, only One with such attributes could subject, direct, and allowing these processes to continue.

Breathing

Moving at extremely high speeds (around 346m per second),(6) oxygen molecules released from such photosynthetic life-forms as plant and tree leaves, and bacteria and algae in the oceans, must reach the lungs of all living organisms. They also must be dissolved in water so that fish and other marine organisms can breathe. In fact, all of these processes must take place continuously so that each organism can live until its appointed time. This means that the oxygen molecules must be guided through the atmosphere and into each living organism so that each molecule’s optimal and perfect function may be carried out. Thus, although moving at extremely high speeds, each molecule’s function remains in the best and optimal manner.

Each lung is a highly delicate organ composed of millions of microscopic tunnels ending in tiny sacs (alveoli) encapsulated with a dense capillary (thin artery) network.(7) Oxygen molecules in the atmosphere are inhaled and brought to the sacs, which send oxygen (from within the sac) into the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide is diffused from the bloodstream into the sacs. Although the air we breathe contains a large proportion of nitrogen, it is mainly oxygen that is pulled through the sac’s wall, across the thin arterioles’ microscopic walls, and into the bloodstream’s red blood cells. Each oxygen molecule is then complexed and surrounded by a huge molecule of hemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells). Although these processes take place very quickly, every step occurs with exceptional precision and accuracy.

To reach the trillions of functionally different cells, the red blood cells must be pumped there with a great force. Therefore, all oxygenated red blood cells coming from the lungs are directed immediately to the heart. This masterpiece works continuously from birth until death, pumping fresh blood from the lungs to the tissues, and simultaneously pumps oxygen-deprived blood from the tissues to the lungs.(8)

Red blood cells flow through the arteries with great force. When they reach the thinnest arteries (capillaries) at tissues that are only one-cell thick, they almost align in a single queue within the capillaries and move carefully until the oxygen they carry is diffused to the surrounding needy tissue cells. At the same time, the waste gas of carbon dioxide is diffused quickly from the tissue cells into the blood plasma. The red blood cells then are directed into the veins, loaded with waste gas, and sent back to the heart (this requires great energy, as the blood returns to the heart at a very low pressure). From here, the oxygen-deprived red blood cells are pumped back to the lungs to be oxygenated. In the lungs, carbon dioxide is directed out to the sacs and exhaled into the atmosphere.

As creation contains no waste and every existence is useful, this waste gas is recaptured during photosynthesis to create vital oxygen, thereby displaying an unprecedented example of complementarity. Thus solar energy is harnessed to generate oxygen and provides a means of generating energy beneficial to cells (chemical energy). The oxygen created in this process is taken through multiple steps and stages until it is made available to the cells.

Conclusion

Here, we see a clear manifestation of perfect bounty and grace, for the cells needs are brought to them from afar and with extreme care after going through multiple ordered steps that easily could be disturbed. One insight we acquire is that each step takes place rapidly yet accurately, and so must require an infinite power and knowledge to occur.

We, Earth’s most intelligent creatures must admit our relative inability and impotence to understand fully or even to control any of these perfect processes. Rather than behave according to our vested interests and suppose Earth to be under our control, we should seek to understand our responsibility to know that all of these processes are somehow connected with us and subjected for our benefit in so many ways that conscious gratitude and faithfulness are required.

Footnotes

1. http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html.
2. Richard Monastersky, Deep Dwellers: Microbes Thrive far below Ground, Science News 151 (29 Mar. 1997):192-93.
3. http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bio181/BIOBK/.
4. http://www.sciam.com/0297issuehttp://0297scicit3.html.
5. http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bio181/BIOBK/.
6. http://fermi.bgsu.edu/~stoner/p201/idealg/tsld009.html.
7. http://biology/01.ux.com/MiraCosta/HumanResp.html.
8. http://www.atlcard.com/pump.html.

Before discussing this further, it will be useful to define our terms. By ‘creation theory’ is meant something like this: the Creator, by an act of will which occurred outside of the cosmos, directly willed into being the first plant and animal species, separately and independently of each other. Any subsequent changes or mutations were accomplished only within the species boundaries. No essential modifications or evolution (such as of more complicated species from simpler ones) occurred after that. In the past the earth was at least once flooded extensively. Geological investigations show clearly that this extensive flooding led to the destruction and extinction of a large number of living creatures.

According to the modern ‘evolution theory’, all life evolved from one simple primitive cell, which came out of dead, lifeless matter by chance, then hit upon a method of replication and adaptation which (again by random trial and error over vast periods of time) led to the many varieties of living species each fitted for competitive survival in its particular niche in the environment. The whole process of evolution took several hundred million years. Large geological events are explained as natural phenomena occurring in specific periods of time and without a world-wide destruction of the earth by flood.

The first creation of man was not observed by man; it is an unrepeatable historical event, unsuited to ‘testing by experiment’, the standard procedure in modern science. Further, creation cannot be disproved: it is impossible to devise or conduct an experiment that could falsify the claim put forward by the creation theory. It is for that reason unacceptable as a scientific theory. That does not mean it is false; nor does it mean it is true. However, it is clear that the creation theory shows good correlations with the results of fossil investigation. To some extent, it can be tested in the same way as other historical claims are matched and tested with appropriately corroborative historical documents.

Evolution theory likewise does not fulfil all the criteria which would justify calling it a scientific theory. The great modifications of evolution were never observed; the claims of the theory fall outside of experimental and scientific methods. Nobody has ever observed or could ever observe how a fish became a frog or a monkey became a human; no human witnessed or could ever witness the origin of the cosmos or of life.

A well-known bit of evidence often used to argue for evolution theory is the case of the moth Biston betularia. The moths of this species found in England before the industrial revolution were predominantly white. The effects of industrial pollution blackened rocks and tree-bark. The number of white moths in the population, now fatally exposed to their predators, fell drastically, while the number of black moths rose. Today in the industrialized regions of England, 95% of the moths are black: they had better camouflage and therefore a higher survival rate, eventually dominating the population. Thus, the environment ‘selected’ or favoured the black over the white variety.

While this case clearly illustrates adaptive evolution within a species or, more precisely, the adaptation capacity to certain conditions with which all living beings are endowed by creation, it equally clearly does not illustrate evolution from one species to another. The latter kind of change or ‘macro-evolution’ is never observable. As a famous supporter of evolution, Dobzhansky, put it-evolution can never be repeated or reversed (no life-form ever evolves back to what it allegedly had once been); the time periods reckoned for major changes to occur exceed by far the life-span of mankind as a whole; it is impossible to test the theory scientifically and therefore it cannot be presented to anti-evolutionists in a way that would force them to change their position.

Some evolutionist scientists are objective and honest enough to accept that evolution theory is no more scientific than the creation theory. For example, providing a short list of the theory’s weaknesses, Harris pointed out that creationists demand from the evolutionists an explanation of (a) how random mutations led to adaptations, (b) why natural selection acts only for the benefit of some species, (c) why natural selection allowed the survival of organs which are obviously not used. We now understand, Harris maintains, that neither theory is rational, that both depend on axioms.

In the Preface of the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, Mathews, pointing out that the evolution of the animals has never been demonstrated, asks: Is biology now a science or a belief system?

It does not follow from the fact that neither theory is ‘scientific’ according to the strict criteria, that either is necessarily wrong. However, since evolution theory claims that evolution occurred according to natural laws, these laws must be valid at the present time (as in the past), and the theory may not contradict those laws. But the evolutionists insist that the non-demonstrability of evolution, its central weakness as a scientific theory, must be accepted as a consequence of the enormous slowness of evolutionary processes. They further insist that creation theory should be removed from scientific textbooks, it should not be investigated scientifically, and certainly not presented as an alternative to evolution. But their argument that creation theory cannot be scientifically tested applies equally to evolution theory. Similarly, their objection that creation theory promotes religion and belief in supernatural agency, applies equally to evolution theory which promotes atheism as a belief system and accords to random ‘natural’ processes the role of supernatural agency. If it is wrong or improper to teach the former, it must be wrong or improper to teach the latter also.

In practice, evolution theory has become an unofficial state-supported religion sponsored directly by its exclusive place on all curricula; a dogma that binds students of biology to the closed horizons of evolution theory in schools, colleges and universities. However, more and more scientists are finding the courage to assert that grave inconsistencies between evolutionary theory and scientific laws or experimental results exist. Also, many scientists are arguing that the creation model is free from such inconsistencies and offers a better explanation of the established facts about the origin of living organisms. Even some followers of evolutionary theory are admitting to being dissatisfied with it and to seeking a ‘better’ theory that fits and explains the known facts in a properly scientific way.

The essential claim of modern evolutionary theory is that the processes of evolution resulted from natural selection of the coincidental mutational modifications in the genetic code. This selection was realized in relation to modifications of the environment. Natural selection is an agent, acting through coincidences and working in mutated genes. But that does not explain (as it was once thought and hoped it would) very much at all. There is a fatal circularity, a fatal self-validation, in the theory of selection. Which living creatures survived? Answer: those that adapted to the changes in their environment. Which living creatures adapted? Answer: those that survived. There is no explanatory effectiveness in this kind of reasoning.

It is impossible to explain, why some species only live until they produce the next generation. We only know that because they were created in that way. Scientists who support the creation model believe that natural selection leads to species extending modifications towards ever-increasing complexity. Natural selection has the merely negative function of eventually removing from the environment species that have failed to realize their potential to adapt.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all processes of change are initiated by mutations. Mutations are random, heritable modifications in the chromosomes or genes, which are complete functioning elements. Whatever happens randomly can nevertheless be calculated according to known and established mathematical principles. Therefore, it should be possible to calculate and predict the numbers of mutations necessary to effect a change in the organism. In short, if we really believe that evolution resulted through coincidence, then the time period needed for the transformation of a protozoon to a human can be worked out. One group of mathematicians who support the evolution theory did compute the time needed. The results of their calculations were that it would take one billion times longer than the five billion of years that the world has existed. In sum, it is impossible for evolution to have happened by chance. Why then do we allow that impossibility to be taught in schools presented in textbooks as if it were truth? It is impossible to justify.

A team lead by Robert Costanza, the director of the Institute of Ecological Economics at the University of Maryland have determined the cost of services we receive in nature. Among the countless processes associated with the miraculous sustenance of life on earth, such as provision of water, air, nutrition from the soil and animals, maintenance of atmospheric composition at the optimal proportions and concentrations of oxygen, nitrogen and carbondioxide gas, the following are indispensable to our existence: 

• The hitherto undiscovered remedies to fatal diseases locked up in the leaves, petals or the bark of unrecognized plant species in the tropical forests.

• The continual succession of day and night whereby, during daylight, mass production of oxygen through plants provides the gas needed for respiration by animals.

• The apparent life-giving effect of rain, where once drought and famine stricken landscapes are transformed to magnificently lush greenery in a few days.

• Above all, the magnitude and rate of energy emanating from the sun cannot be priced since it is next to impossible to attain, if ever, a fraction of it on Earth.

If we stop and ponder for a moment about the services provided through the manifestation of life, we will realize that even our own bodily systems are a service at our disposal. Our bodies function, literally, without our voluntary intervention at any point from conception until our last breath. This is surely a marvel for those who see, but a miracle for those who understand. Certainly this obvious and aweinspiring fact of our state could not be ignored or even priced in monetary terms. A more crucial question we must address, however, is this: in the light of such priceless service for the maintenance of our lives what will be the repercussions for the abuse of such a valuable trust?

As stated by one marine biologist at Oregon State University: ‘This calculation is sufficiently startling that it should make us wake up and pay closer attention.’ (New Scientist, No. 2082, 17 May 1997).

Additionally, we must also ask why such gracious and extraordinary services are put at the disposal and under the dominion of mankind? If we consider ourselves to be the ‘most evolutionarily advanced species’, then the processes which we call ‘nature’ should have absolute power, knowledge and intelligence that is beyond our comprehension in order for them to be able to understand our needs, let alone provide for us. Can we claim that the trees we are able to cut down with such ease, have knowledge comparable to ours that they bear fruits which are not only a pleasure for our sight and taste, but also a dietary need? Or can we claim that the environment which is so vulnerable to human tampering is the direct source of life?

Hence, the so-called ‘natural phenomena’ are incapable of knowing how to support human life with its ultimate biological, social and psychological complexity. Therefore, these inanimate processes must be pre-programmed to exist and are reproducibly sustained with impeccable accuracy. Their existence is certainly out of our control.

The existence of man must therefore be for a very definite and special purpose. Man thrives and develops throughout his life through the means provided to him. These means, on which he is absolutely dependent, are also the means over whose function and disposal he has limited power. How should he then value these riches, and use them in the way they are intended to be used, for the purpose they have been created for?

Endowed with lofty faculties like the mind and the intellect, his essential duty entails his conscious obligation to take on the immense responsibility to recognise and understand the subservient world around him. Through disciplining and training himself he must express due respect and gratitude in direct response to the generous bounty representing his life, given to him by the One other than those processes. His responsibility is immense, but in which lies a huge recompense. He has been created in a way that he may deserve the benefits, but will he make himself deserving of it? 

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.