Kindred Quaker Groups
Canadian Yearly Meeting

"The Mouse That Made the Lawyers Roar"

by Anne Mitchell and Janet Somerville

in LIFE: Patent Pending, Discussion Guide on Biotechnology and the Oncomouse

Canadian Council of Churches http://www.ccc-cce.ca Biotechnology Reference Group

CANADIAN QUAKERS—the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, to use their proper name—were the first faith community in Canada to take a stand on this new-to-Canada issue of the patenting of a higher life form. On August 20, 2000, the Yearly Meeting wrote to the Prime Minister and "implored the Federal Government to appeal the August 3 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal", *

Several groups of environmental activists in Canada were equally swift in their response, having followed the issue on its long journey through the courts. Then the Friends' representative to the Canadian Council of Churches challenged her Council colleagues, saying: Is there something wrong with this picture? Doesn't it seem to you that patenting a living animal is a rather arrogant step to take, given that humans don't own Creation?

Shouldn't there be a broader public conversation about the patenting of higher life forms, and shouldn't the churches be in on that conversation? The Friends' challenge was heeded. After some very lively conversations, Rev. David Pfrimmer, then chair of the Commission on Justice and Peace of the Canadian Council of Churches, wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an appeal of the Federal Court's decision, citing the need for broad public reflection before a final decision on such a significant precedent.

On October 2, 2000, the Government of Canada files an application to appeal the 'Oncomouse' decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Shortly afterwards, the Canadian Council of Churches, in partnership with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, requested and obtained intervener status in the case. The Supreme Court issued its Oncomouse decision on December 5, 2002. ...

The Supreme Court based its no-patent ruling only on the meaning of the existing Canada Patent Act. But the judges noted that Canadians, through their Parliament, must think about the issue much more broadly....

"This Court does not possess the institutional competence to deal with issues of this complexity, which presumably will require Parliament to engage in public debate, a balancing of competing social interests, and intricate legislative drafting."...

The question of whether or not higher life forms can appropriately be patented is too vital a question for the courts alone. We all need to be involved....

We want to help ordinary church members in Canada to begin a real conversation about biopatenting—at least about those dimensions of the question that churches should be raising.