Stem cell patent ban

stem cells under the microscope The ban will prevent patents for research which involves the destrction of human embryos

It was the ruling which stem cell scientists had feared. The European Court of Justice has banned - on ethical grounds - the issuing of patents for embryonic stem cell research.

The ruling upholds an interim judgement I wrote about in April. The judgement is designed to prevent the commercial exploitation - via a patent - of discoveries which involve the destruction of human embryos. The ruling mentions "respect for human dignity".

The test case involved a patent filed in 1997 by a German professor, Oliver Bruestle, for creating nerve cells from human embryonic stem cells. Professor Bruestle said there were many potential clinical applications, especially for patients with Parkinson' s disease.


The court said "scientific research entailing the use of human embryos cannot access the protection of patent law". But the ruling said it would permit patents where the technique was useful to the human embryo itself "to correct a malformation and improve the chances of life".

This is a significant ruling. The UK permits embryonic stem cell research, up to 14 days gestation. In reality, the stem cells are extracted after about five days, when the donated embryo is smaller than a pinhead. The resulting stem cells are "eternal" in the sense that they can continue growing indefinitely if kept in the right conditions. So this research does not require a production line of embryos.


Nonetheless, the European Court has drawn a line and made it clear that it is unethical to profit from what it sees as the fundamentals of human life.

Having read the comments from my last blog on this subject, it is clear this ruling divides opinion.

Critics of embryonic stem cell research will be pleased. David Jones from the Anscombe Bioethics Centre welcomed the ruling.

"It is to be hoped that this decision will act as a "nudge" encouraging scientists to turn from embryonic stem cells and towards ethical and more effective forms of stem cell research. From the perspective of those who recognise the status of the human embryo, this is a small step in the right direction."

To date there have been just two human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells - the first in Europe was announced a few weeks ago. There are, by contrast, many successful therapies using adult stem cells derived from the patient themselves. There is also promising research on so-called induced pluripotent stem cells which can be creating without destroying embryos.


But stem cell researchers fear the ruling could damage this whole field of research and drive much of it abroad - to America and Asia. Patents are important if pharmaceutical companies are to recoup their investment in clinical trials and turn a profit.

Professor Sir Ian Wilmut from the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, said: "It is very much to be regretted that the Court has taken this view. It will unfortunately make it less likely that companies in Europe will invest in the research to develop treatments to use embryonic stem cells for treatment of human diseases."

Professor Austin Smith, Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research, University of Cambridge, said: "This unfortunate decision by the Court leaves scientists in a ridiculous position. We are funded to do research for the public good, yet prevented from taking our discoveries to the market place where they could be developed into new medicines."

Patent lawyers are likely to be extremely busy as a result of the ruling. Some are already suggesting there may be a way round the judgement, by patenting the therapeutic process rather than the stem cells themselves.

Fergus Walsh Article written by Fergus Walsh Fergus Walsh Medical correspondent

Defeating cancer, the 'evil genius'

Can we win the war against cancer? Over the past 18 months, Panorama has followed a group of patients on drug trials. Some who'd been given months to live, are keeping cancer at bay for years.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 6.

    I might be missing the point here, but as far as I know if the research is conducted in the EU patents can still be applied for in any other country. In fact it's common practice to patent a discovery, method or idea in every country which has a patent system.
    If you cast an eye to the software/method patents handed out in the USA you'll see patents being used to stifle creativity not encourage it

  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    the news are that embryo stem cells research is banned in EU. I wish just cancer to the supporters . Then I will ask them if they want a cure based on embryo stem cell. It would be curious to see how many change their minds when they are in the suffering rows ..... human dignity , pro-life ? What is the human dignity or life when you cannot see, walk and can't even go to the bathroom by yourself ?

  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    EU Court has said that ethics must take priority over commercial interests, but what about quality of life issues?
    Scientists criticised the decision, as do I. Professor Bruestle called it an unbelievable setback for biomedical stem cell research. He said: We are funded to do research; yet prevented from taking our discoveries to the marketplace where they could be developed into new techniques.

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    EU Court of Justice ruled process which involves removal of stem cell from human embryo at the blastocyst (early embryonic development) stage, entailing the killing of embryo, CANNOT BE PATENTED.
    Judges maintained EU prohibits ANY patents related to human embryos.
    (Greenpeace brought case against Bruestle's patent in Germany.)

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    are the EU trying to self distruct the embryos are going to be discarded as medical waste why not put these to GOOD USE

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    Thank you for this article. I read the news article announcing this ruling and it made me angry - not because of the decision, but because the journalist completely failed to explain what any of it actually meant, merely listing a series of quotes with no context. Thank you for taking the time to explain what the ruling is, why it was made, what its implications are and why scientists are angry.



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.