Congressional Perspectives

  • Kevin W. O’Connor

Abstract

Legal, economic, ethical, and social issues relating to animal patents were the subject of hearings and legislation during the 100th US Congress. The purpose of this paper is to explain why Congress is interested in the topic of animal patents, to highlight the legislative activities of the 100th Congress related to this issue and to describe the role of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in advising Congress on issues raised by animal patents.

Keywords

Marketing Assure Protec 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Congressional Record (1987) 133 (May 28): S7268–9.Google Scholar
  2. Congressional Record (1988) 134 (Feb. 29): S1620–21.Google Scholar
  3. US Congress, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice (1987) Patents and the Constitution: Transgenic Animals. Hearings, 100th Congress, Serial No. 23.Google Scholar
  4. US Congress, Congressional Research Service (1987) Patenting Life. Issue Brief, IB87222.Google Scholar
  5. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988a) Transgenic Animals. Staff Paper, Biological Applications Program.Google Scholar
  6. — (1988b) Federal Regulation and Animal Patents. Staff Paper, Biological Applications Program.Google Scholar
  7. US Congress, House Report (1988) Transgenic Animal Patent Reform Act. No. 100–888, to accompany HR 4970.Google Scholar
  8. White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy (1984) Proposed Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Fed. Reg., 49: 50856 et seq.Google Scholar
  9. — (1985) Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology; Establishment of the Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee. Fed. Reg., 50: 47174–6.Google Scholar
  10. — (1986) Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology; Announcement of Policy and Notice for Public Comment. Fed. Reg., 51: 23301 et seq.Google Scholar

Legal Reference

  1. Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin W. O’Connor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations