While most people will read this and discuss the use of embryos in heated voices and others will discuss the effects on science (both important discussions to have), I see only one result from this. The European Union has set a precedent which, if copied in other countries, will absolutely force pharmacuetical companies to make patentable drugs out of embryonic stem cells instead of using adult stem cells which have a long history of safety and efficacy. Which countries are in the European Union?
Member states of the EU (year of entry)
And btw, there are also a LOT of pharma companies headquartered in the European Union…
| Rank [30] |
Company |
Country |
Total Revenues (USD millions) |
Healthcare R&D 2008 (USD millions) |
Net income/ (loss) 2008 (USD millions) |
Employees 2008 |
| 1 |
Pfizer [33] (with Wyeth [34] ) |
United States |
70,696 |
11,318 |
14,111 |
137,127 |
| 2 |
Johnson & Johnson |
United States |
63,747 |
NA |
10,576 |
119,200 |
| 3 |
Hoffmann–La Roche |
Switzerland |
43,970 |
NA |
8,135 |
78,604 |
| 4 |
Novartis |
Switzerland |
41,460 |
NA |
11,946 |
98,200 |
| 5 |
GlaxoSmithKline |
United Kingdom |
40,424 |
6,373 |
10,432 |
103,483 |
| 6 |
Sanofi-Aventis |
France |
40,328 |
NA |
7,204 |
99,495 |
| 7 |
AstraZeneca |
United Kingdom |
31,601 |
NA |
5,959 |
67,400 |
| 8 |
Abbott Laboratories [35] |
United States |
29,527 |
2,688 |
4,880 |
68,697 |
| 9 |
Merck & Co. |
United States |
23,850 |
4,678 |
7,808 |
74,372 |
| 10 |
Bristol-Myers Squibb |
United States |
19,977 |
NA |
2,165 |
42,000 |
| 11 |
Eli Lilly and Company |
United States |
18,634 |
NA |
2,953 |
40,600 |
| 12 |
Boehringer Ingelheim |
Germany |
16,959 |
1,977 |
2,163 |
43,000 |
| 13 |
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. |
Japan |
15,697 |
1,620 |
2,870 |
15,000 |
| 14 |
Bayer [36] |
Germany |
15,407 |
3,770 |
6,448 |
108,600 |
| 15 |
Amgen |
United States |
14,771 |
3,366 |
3,166 |
48,000 |
| 16 |
Genentech |
United States |
13,400 |
15773 |
3,640 |
33,500 |
| 17 |
Baxter International |
United States |
12,300 |
614 |
1,397 |
38,428 |
| 18 |
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries |
Israel |
11,080 |
495 |
546 |
26,670 |
| 19 |
Astellas Pharma |
Japan |
10,701 |
1,435 |
1,122 |
23,613 |
| 20 |
Daiichi Sankyo |
Japan |
9,682 |
1,459 |
671 |
20,100 |
| 21 |
Novo Nordisk |
Denmark |
9,081 |
1,063 |
1,922 |
26,575 |
| 22 |
Procter & Gamble |
United States |
8,964 |
NA |
10,340 |
29,258 |
| 23 |
Eisai |
Japan |
5,583 |
926 |
604 |
14,993 |
| 24 |
Merck KGaA |
Germany |
5,175 |
772 |
1,258 |
13,900 |
| 25 |
Alcon |
United States |
4,897 |
512 |
1,348 |
13,500 |
| 26 |
SINOPHARM |
China |
4,700 |
498 |
1249 |
9700 |
| 27 |
Akzo Nobel |
Netherlands |
4,694 |
741 |
1,449 |
13,000 |
| 28 |
UCB |
Belgium |
4,426 |
1,024 |
492 |
12,741 |
| 29 |
Nycomed |
Switzerland |
4,264 |
NA |
-105 |
10,533 |
| 30 |
Forest Laboratories |
United States |
3,442 |
941 |
454 |
9,649 |
| 31 |
Solvay |
Belgium |
3,268 |
533 |
1,026 |
9,000 |
| 32 |
Genzyme |
United States |
3,187 |
650 |
-17 |
8,477 |
| 33 |
Allergan |
United States |
3,063 |
1,056 |
-127 |
8,423 |
| 34 |
Gilead Sciences |
United States |
3,026 |
384 |
-1,190 |
6,772 |
| 35 |
CSL |
Australia |
2,788 |
161 |
454 |
6,400 |
| 36 |
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. |
Japan |
2,787 |
467 |
328 |
5,962 |
| 37 |
Biogen Idec |
United States |
2,683 |
718 |
218 |
5,907 |
| 38 |
Bausch & Lomb |
United States |
2,292 |
197 |
15 |
5,830 |
| 39 |
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. |
Japan |
2,069 |
244 |
132 |
5,756 |
| 40 |
King Pharmaceuticals |
United States |
1,989 |
254 |
289 |
5,191 |
| 41 |
Watson Pharmaceuticals |
United States |
1,979 |
131 |
-445 |
5,126 |
| 42 |
Mitsubishi Pharma |
Japan |
1,945 |
403 |
208 |
5,111 |
| 43 |
Shire |
United Kingdom |
1,797 |
387 |
278 |
4,958 |
| 44 |
Cephalon |
United States |
1,764 |
403 |
145 |
4,913 |
| 45 |
Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma |
Japan |
1,763 |
350 |
193 |
3,750 |
| 46 |
Kyowa Hakko |
Japan |
1,698 |
268 |
108 |
2,895 |
| 47 |
Shionogi |
Japan |
1,640 |
320 |
159 |
2,868 |
| 48 |
Mylan Laboratories |
United States |
1,612 |
104 |
217 |
2,800 |
| 49 |
H. Lundbeck |
Denmark |
1,552 |
329 |
186 |
2,515 |
- David
Embryonic Stem-Cell Patents Infringe EU Law, Top Court Says
The European Union’s highest court said that stem-cell research involving human embryos can’t be patented, in a ruling that scientists called “devastating” for medical research.
Inventions based on the use of human embryonic stem cells for scientific research purposes can’t be patented, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg said. The case was triggered when Greenpeace challenged a German patent awarded to Oliver Bruestle, a professor and specialist in stem-cell research.
“This is an unbelievable setback for bio-medical research in the area of stem cells,” Bruestle said in an interview after the ruling. The EU court “took an extreme position on restrictions in this area, which will have huge repercussions globally, especially in the competition with the U.S. and Asia , and in scientific research.”
Under an EU law from 1998, research methods that involve human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes can’t be patented. A German court handling the dispute at the center of yesterday’s case sought the EU tribunal’s view on how to interpret the phrase “for scientific research involving human embryos” and to clarify the term “human embryo.”
“A process which involves removal of a stem cell from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, entailing the destruction of that embryo, cannot be patented,” the EU court said. The blastocyst stage is about five days after fertilization.
Greenpeace, which said it sued for “ethical reasons,” argued the patent for a stem-cell research process developed by Bruestle to treat neural diseases is invalid because it covers cells derived from human embryos. The Federal Court of Justice, Germany’s highest civil court, last year asked the EU tribunal for guidance on the case.
The court clarified that “only use” of human embryos “for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it” are patentable.
“One consequence is that the benefits of our research will be reaped in America and Asia,” said Austin Smith, a professor at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research at the University of Cambridge.
The ruling might actually allow scientists a “sigh of relief,” said Julian Hitchcock, a lawyer and intellectual property specialist in the London office of law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.
Researchers “won’t have to worry about inadvertently infringing someone else’s patent,” Hitchcock said in a phone interview. “While the ruling restricts patentability of such inventions, it doesn’t in any way restrict the use of embryonic stem cells.”
While patent protection might not be available, European scientists can seek so-called data exclusivity, which protects documentation for as much as eight years and prevents the marketing of competing products based on the same data for up to 10 years, said Hitchcock.
The case is: C-34/10, Prof. Dr. Oliver Bruestle v. Greenpeace e.V.
|
Embryonic Stem-Cell Patents Infringe EU Law, Top Court Says
The European Union’s highest court said that stem-cell research involving human embryos can’t be patented, in a ruling that scientists called “devastating” for medical research.
Inventions based on the use of human embryonic stem cells for scientific research purposes can’t be patented, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg said. The case was triggered when Greenpeace challenged a German patent awarded to Oliver Bruestle, a professor and specialist in stem-cell research.
“This is an unbelievable setback for bio-medical research in the area of stem cells,” Bruestle said in an interview after the ruling. The EU court “took an extreme position on restrictions in this area, which will have huge repercussions globally, especially in the competition with the U.S. and Asia , and in scientific research.”
Under an EU law from 1998, research methods that involve human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes can’t be patented. A German court handling the dispute at the center of yesterday’s case sought the EU tribunal’s view on how to interpret the phrase “for scientific research involving human embryos” and to clarify the term “human embryo.”
“A process which involves removal of a stem cell from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, entailing the destruction of that embryo, cannot be patented,” the EU court said. The blastocyst stage is about five days after fertilization.
Greenpeace, which said it sued for “ethical reasons,” argued the patent for a stem-cell research process developed by Bruestle to treat neural diseases is invalid because it covers cells derived from human embryos. The Federal Court of Justice, Germany’s highest civil court, last year asked the EU tribunal for guidance on the case.
The court clarified that “only use” of human embryos “for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it” are patentable.
“One consequence is that the benefits of our research will be reaped in America and Asia,” said Austin Smith, a professor at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research at the University of Cambridge.
The ruling might actually allow scientists a “sigh of relief,” said Julian Hitchcock, a lawyer and intellectual property specialist in the London office of law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.
Researchers “won’t have to worry about inadvertently infringing someone else’s patent,” Hitchcock said in a phone interview. “While the ruling restricts patentability of such inventions, it doesn’t in any way restrict the use of embryonic stem cells.”
While patent protection might not be available, European scientists can seek so-called data exclusivity, which protects documentation for as much as eight years and prevents the marketing of competing products based on the same data for up to 10 years, said Hitchcock.
The case is: C-34/10, Prof. Dr. Oliver Bruestle v. Greenpeace e.V.