Japanese scientiststhey have, for the first time, grown mammalian eggs from stem cells and that these artificially created eggs were. This advancement is being called of the long search for the holy-grail of reproductive biology.
What Are Stem Cells?
Allstem cells have two important characteristics:
1) They are cells that are capable of renewing themselves, seemingly indefinitely, through cell division, sometimes even after long periods of inactivity.
2) Under certain conditions, these undifferentiated cells can be induced to become tissue – or organ-specific cells with special functions.
Because early stemcell lines were derived from embryos, stem cell research has beencausing many states to pass specifying what and be done.
Աstem cells, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (s) arefrom pre-implantation embryos but are instead derived from certain adult cells that have been re-programmed to assume a stem-cell like state.
Proponents of stem cell research have argued that because ofthe stem cell'sunique regenerative abilities, stem cells offerpotentially new methods for treating diseases such asԻ. In light of Thursday’s announcement, many in the scientific community are now saying that can be added to the list.
What Was Achieved?
According to the research, a team of scientists led by Dr. created viable mouse eggs in vitro using both and cell lines. The viability of these eggs was demonstrated byin vitro fertilizationwith natural mouse sperm to create healthy, fertile offspring. The details of the research methodology can be reviewed .
This achievement comes only a year after the same core group of scientists that they were able to create mice sperm from stem cells to generate healthy, fertile offspring.
This recent development is being touted as of the long-sought holy grail in reproductive biology: to make sperm and eggs in a laboratory dish.
What WasNotAchieved?
It remains to be seen (1) whether Saito’s artificially created mouse sperm can be used to fertilize these artificially created egg cells to produce healthy, fertile offspring and (2) whether this result can be replicated in other mammals, such as humans.
However the of this work are startling. Based on this study, it is conceivable that researchers may one day be able to create genetic human offspring from the DNA of otherwise infertile couples including same-sexed partners and even deceased individuals.
The Canadian Scramble: Oncomouse v Monsanto
of the states that a patent must disclose a “new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or , or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”.
While no patent application has yet been filed, this discovery nonetheless raises some interesting questions as to the Canadian patentability of the subject matter disclosed by Saito et al.
On one hand, we have the Supreme Court’s decision in Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) () which states that ; on the other, we have the SCC’s decision in Schmeiser et al v Monsanto () which .
Moreover, the majority in Monsanto (para ) and both the majority (para ) and the minority (para ) in Harvard, conceded that a genetically altered egg cell would be patentable because it is “a substance or preparation formed by combination or mixture of various ingredients” thus satisfying s2 of the Patent Act.
But if Saito and his team were to file a patent application for the genes that produced their ground-breaking oocyte cells in Ottawa next month -- how would Canadian law rule on the validity of this request? At what point would the genetically altered egg rise from a mere “preparation formed by combination or mixture of various ingredients” to a “higher life form”? Would the SCC still the question of whether or not patent protection for a gene “extends to activities involving the organism that results from that gene” (para )?
Areas for Further Legal Research
Several papers on the patentability of biomedical technology have been featured on this blog including of the state of gene patenting in Canada by. Kurys recommended that the Patent Actbeamendedto include (1) a provision that grants Parliament the power to award compulsory licensing to a third party who can demonstrate an overriding public need to a government administrative body and (2) a research exemption for genetic patents in medical technology. One wonders how his analysis might be applied to this latest development in reproductive biology.
Beatrice Sze is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.