Patenting scientific principles and natural phenomena

Lori Andrews and three co-authors, When Patents Threaten Science, Science Magazine, December 1, 2006 (accessible only to subscribers). Excerpt:

What if each generation of scientists was forbidden to use —or even think about— the theorems, principles, and natural phenomena that had been discovered or proven by the previous generation of scientists? Researchers may soon find themselves in that position as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) comes dangerously close to issuing patents on the basic building blocks of science itself. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in June 2006, Laboratory Corporation v. Metabolite Laboratories, and a solicitation by the USPTO in July 2006 for comments on proposed guidelines for patent examiners have raised questions about the delicate balance between a common body of knowledge and the exclusive rights over scientific information embodied in a patent....

Scientists may not have paid sufficient attention to the privatization of common knowledge because, in the past, they felt that research activities did not require approval from patent holders. The 2002 Madey v. Duke decision put an end to such protection. Scientists can be influential by helping policy-makers understand that open access to basic laws of nature, products of nature, and mathematical formulae is necessary for scientists to explore and innovate. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that fact, but, increasingly, the USPTO in granting such patents and the Federal Circuit in upholding them seem to have forgotten it.

PS:  For background, see my previous posts on Madey v. Duke.