Principle Of Sacraments - Free Essay Example

1. QUESTION 1 The Principle of Sacramentality can best be defined if the words encompassing it are first described. The phrase sacramentality originated from a Latin word Sacramentum, which is a direct translation of the Greek word mysterion, which in English means mystery. The Principle of Sacramentality is, therefore, an instrument of reality that signifies the presence of Gods activity in any sacred undertaking of humankind (Sherry, 2008). The Principle of Sacramentality is as God himself gave humans the son who is God, and He was born as a human being. God, became man through his son, was born of the blessed Mary, and was raised up as a man on the earth. The Principle of Sacramentality indicates that God is seen, heard and touched in the human living perspective since He became human through Jesus (Sherry, 2008). The Church conducts different rituals that enable the invisible presence of God to grow tangible in various ways for the believers to have a unique encounter with God in their lives (Cooke, 2004). According to the Catholic Church, the Principle of Sacramentality is the way in which God expresses his invisible grace to Christians using signs and action. For instance, in the sacrament of Baptism, the water is used as a sign of Gods grace of washing away the sins. This washing shows that for the Christians to experience the cleansing of sins, they have to encounter with God through the sign of water, which is poured on them (Beguerie Duchesneau, 1997). 2. QUESTION 2 The Church as a whole has three sacraments of initiation. Baptism is the first of the initiation sacraments the others being The Eucharist and Confirmation. The Baptism is taken to introduce a new member to the church. It all marks the entry of one into the church community. It is a welcome of one into godly life (Cooke, 2004). Baptism Marks the end of sins and thus the beginning of a new life in God. Baptism pardons Christian their sins and gives them the dignity to be called Gods children (John3; 5). Confirmation is the time one is filled with the Holy Spirit. It is time for one to take on Gods image (Luke 24; 49). Eucharist is about a Christian are transformed in the flesh all through to their everlasting life (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). Jesus Christ was the first one to institute sacraments since He gave His disciples some directives to follow in the way of Christianity. Such directives were confined to the establishment of sacraments. He said to His chosen disciples, to travel far and wide making disciples, teaching all those who believe and ultimately baptizing them in the name of the supreme trinity (Matthew 27:19). On the night before He died, He instituted the sacrament of Eucharist, the last supper. He took the bread, he blessed it, broke it and gave to His disciples as He uttered; This is my body, and this is the chalice of my blood, do this in remembrance of me (Mark 14:22-25). This practice gave the priests the power to consecrate the Eucharist, which is practiced today. It is all about confirmation of the ways of Christ and nothing less than doing what Jesus Christ set the disciples to do. It is also giving out to God the best regarding service to others. 3. QUESTION3 Following the New Testament, baptism is an event that was practiced right from the time of John the Baptist to the present day. It is considered as a sacred ritual and one that stands out wholly for the believers as far as a cleansing of ones sins is concerned. The Baptism is also understood as a time for the welcoming of the new church members into the faith. It all marks the entry of one into the church community. Therefore, Baptism cannot be complete without the association of water which is believed to wash away the sins and act as a regenerator to the renewal of the Christian faith by the installation of Holy Spirit into ones soul (Luke 3:21). From the Christian perspective, the Sacrament of Baptism is the basis of the completely Christian life. It is a welcome of one into godly life Baptism Marks the end of sins and thus the beginning of a new life in God (Luke 2:21). The word Baptism originated from a Greek word baptizo in which it means to immerse. Water is seen as a purifier and a source of life and light as it nourishes the life of all living creatures even plants. This pathway directs anyone who seeks to be a true believer. It is through Baptism that all believers are freed from their sins and are born again as true children of God and joined the army of Christ (Mark 1:10). The Church has a firm position on the Sacrament of Baptism as it is from it that new disciples are created just as it was ordered by Christ.(Matthew 13:16). Initially, during the creation, the man had the nature of God, but after falling into sin, man was separated from Gods character. This state left man a sinner. The Sacrament of Baptism was consequently introduced to reconcile the human with God. Jesus instituted this sacrament for every soul after paying for the original sin on the cross. In addition, the disciples were commanded to go all over the world preaching the word, and those who believe and are baptized will be saved (Mark 16; 15-16) Baptism is understood as a fundamental sacrament that any Christian qualifies to take in any stage in life as long as one decides to be the church member, apart from it being the first of all the seven sacraments. This is because no one can receive any of the six sacraments unless one is Baptized (Sherry, 2008). Baptism is equally vital for ones salvation. Scripture confirms that it is only through baptism of water and that of the spirit that one has a place in Gods kingdom (John3; 6). 4. QUESTION 4 Confirmation is also identified a spiritual strengthening sacrament and was instituted to witness the true character of Christ. Jesus told the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirits power that will help them to be his witness all over the world (Luke 24; 49). Confirmation by Holy oil helps in increasing the sanctifying grace in Christians life as well as enabling them to remain spiritually alive. It is through Confirmation that the Christians can resist sin and become more like Christ (Cooke, 2004). The Sacrament of Confirmation is associated with light just as the Sacrament of Baptism is related to water (History Development of Sacrament of Confirmation, 2017). During the ceremony of Confirmation, some rituals accompany it, which is believed to be the qualification for one to be crowned entirely. Confirmation enables the Christian to be like Christ the king in leadership and directing others. Therefore, the Christians use the Sacrament of Confirmation in spreading their faith as well as defending it (Cooke, 2004). The anointing ritual is the last one during this ceremony where anointing oil is smeared on the forehead of the confirmed. The oil smeared on the forehead of the established, therefore, shows that one has been chosen by God to be His child and he should follow the Gods teachings (1st Samuel 16:13). 5. QUESTION 5 The presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Eucharist is different from the presence of Christ in other sacraments. This is because in other sacrament Christ is present by his power but not in reality as in the body and blood. As a result, while partaking the Eucharist Christians do not only participate in the bread and wine but Christ in a person who is the food of eternal life. During Eucharist, the Catholics worship Christ, whom they supposed to be present in the sacramental bread and blood. This shows that the bread is not a mere symbol of Christ, but Christ is substantially present in it (Billy Keating, 2006). Those who have been initiated participate with others in the whole community in the Lords sacrifice using the Eucharist. It originated from the act of Christ in the Last Supper before his betrayal.Christ established the Eucharist of the sacrifice of His own body and blood. He did it to bring forth an eternal sacrifice that will be a sign of love, unity, resurrection and act as a memory of the journey of salvation that he underwent (Matthew 26:26-28). The Eucharist summarizes our faith because we believe that Christ hang dead on the cross for our redemption. He gave His body for persecution for our sake and shed his blood for the redemption of our lost souls. This body is symbolized by the bread and blood changed from wine when the priest consecrates them when he says; This is my body and the chalice of my blood. (1st Corinthians 11:23). 6. QUESTION 6 The other name of Penance is Confession and Reconciliation. In this Sacrament, Christians are expected to confess their sin and return to God from their astray. The critical element of this sacrament is the act of confessing individuals sins to the priest. The Catholic Church has given the Christians a way to reconcile with their creator (Cooke, 2004). Christ as a sign of love and mercy instituted the Sacrament of Penance. What the signs of the Sacrament symbolize however is a more profound, mysterious, religious and spiritual state or level of being. At a sacred level, the Sacrament of Penance offers the opportunity for Christian to heal their relationship with God by obtaining forgiveness for their sins. It makes Jesus present and can change our lives as we come to know how God loves us. Signs, which accompany the Sacrament of Penance, are not just empty symbols; they convey something else, which draws humans into reality they portray. The priest utters that, your sins are forgiven (Luke 5:20). The signs embraced during this Sacrament of Penance reinforce the density of the forgiveness attained. Therefore, the Penance that we seek is to strengthen our faith. References Beguerie, P., Duchesneau, C. (1997). How to understand the sacraments. New York: Crossroad. Billy, D. J., Keating, J. (2006). The way of mystery: The Eucharist and moral living. New York: Paulist Press. Cooke, B. J. (2004). Sacraments sacramentality. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications. History Development of Sacrament of Confirmation. (2017). Loyolapress.com. Retrieved 15 July 2017, from https://www.loyolapress.com/our-catholic-faith/sacraments/confirmation/history-and-development-of-sacrament-of-confirmation. Sherry, P. (2008). The Sacramentality of Things. New Black friars, 89(1023), 575-590.

Biotechnological innovations and Patent Law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 12 Words: 3479 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Narrative essay Tags: Innovation Essay Did you like this example? The issue of biotechnological innovations in many respects represents a substantial challenge to law.[1] The provisions in the European Patent Convention 2000(EPC) and the Biotech Directive are lacking in managing this challenge, in light of the fact that they are vague and cant be utilized to reject indecent advancements. Opinions on patents in the field of biotechnology are divided, with support for unfettered scientific progress at one end of the spectrum and a commitment to uphold the basic values of society at the other. Where many see an important contribution to social progress, others are concerned about potential risks and ethical questions.[2] This note will critically analyse the statement by looking deep into patent laws and their interpretation by European Patent Office (EPO). Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Biotechnological innovations and Patent Law" essay for you Create order First, this text will define à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Biotechnologyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and label the provisions of EPC and the Biotech Directive dealing with biotechnology. Moreover the text will discuss briefly how morality influences the patent rights that are granted to biotech inventions. Furthermore some cases showing the uncertainties and controversies (arouses out while interpreting and imposing provisions of EPC and The directive) will also be highlight, proving the provisions of EPC and bio directive are unclear and not even able to identify weather an inventions is immoral. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Biotechnologyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.[3] According to the European Patent Convention (EPC), biotechnological inventions are inventions which concern a product consisting of or containing biological material or a process by means of which biolog ical material is produced, processed or used.[4] To be patentable, biotechnological inventions have to meet the same criteria as those in any other field of technology. Patents can only be granted for inventions that are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application[TM1]. A specific legal definition of novelty has developed over the years, with new meaning made available to the public[TM2]. This means, for example, that a human gene, which existed before but was hidden from the public in the sense of having no recognised existence, can be patented when it is isolated from its environment or when it is produced by means of a technical process and as long as its industrial application is disclosed in the patent application[TM3]. All other requirements of patentability must also be fulfilled[TM4]. While biotechnological inventions are in principle patentable, due to the nature of biotechnology and its ethical implications there are specific rules wh ich apply when considering the patentability of an invention in this field.[5] Articles 52 and 53 of EPC say what can and cant be patented. Biotechnological developments are essentially patentable. Nonetheless, no European patent can be allowed for any of the accompanying: Any invention whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“ordre public or moralityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[6] Plant and animal varieties.[7] Essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals,[8] i.e. classical breeding comprising crossing and selection. Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy, and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body.[9] Discoveries (e.g. the mere discovery of natural substances, such as the sequence or partial sequence of a gene) are not patentable. However, if an inventor provides a description of the technical problem they are intended to solve and a technical teaching they move from being a discovery to being a patentable invention.[10] Here, Article 52 of the EPC defines patentability in the European Community.'[11] Specifically, Article52(1) states that European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new, and which involve an inventive step.[12] Subsequent provisions of the EPC narrow the broad language of potential patentability declared in Article 52(1). First, the EPC details with some clarity matter which does not have a sufficient inventive step to be patentable. Such materials include mathematical models, aesthetic creations, and presentations of information.[13] Next, categorical exclusions from the general rule of patentability are listed under Article 53.[14] Particularly relevant to this discussion, Article 53(b) excludes plant or animal varieties and essentially biological processes from patentability.[15] However, in contrast to the foregoing explanation of matter not rising to the level of an invention under Article 52, the terms variet ies or essentially biological are not defined under Article 53 or elsewhere in the EPC.[16] While the Guidelines for Examination of Patents (Guidelines) issued by the EPO attempt to define these terms,[17] However the Guidelines are not binding on the member states.[18] Thus, a lack of uniformity in patent protection among member states is distinctly possible under the existing definitional system.[19] In addition to the ambiguities surrounding the key definitions discussed above, the Article 53 exclusions from patentability are problematic with regard to biotechnological patents for several reasons. First, as noted by the European Parliament (Parliament), the patent system, when applied to living matter, must be adapted to the problems linked to the special nature of such matter.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [20] In light of changing technology, the ECs international competitors have explicitly declared living matter and even animals to be patentable and have enacted special rules to deal wit h problems unique to patenting living matter.[21] However, under Article 53 of the EPC, only microbiological inventions[22] can be patented.[23] Some member states have responded to the inadequacies of the outdated EPC provisions in this area by enacting national laws to deal specifically with biotechnology.[24] Second, the interpretation of the plant and animal varieties exclusion may be problematic. The basis of this exclusion was that,under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), another method exists besides patenting through which to obtain legal protection for plant varieties. The Convention declared that plant varieties were entitled either to a special title of protection or to a patent, but not both.[25] Unlike plants, however, animals do not have protection outside the scope of the EC patent system, under the UPOV or any other convention. Nonetheless, this exclusionary provision was invoked in the HARVARD/Onco-mouse decision by the Examining Division, which considered the Onco-mouse to be a type of animal variety.[26] The member states of the EC also have inadequate guidance on patenting biotechnological inventions because of inconsistent EPO decisions. Two prior decisions by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal indicate a proatent protection attitude[27] and seem initially to forecast fundamental change to the patent system.[28] In the Hybrid Plants/LUBRIZOL decision, the Technical Board of Appeal narrowly construed one of the stated exceptions to the general rule of patentability.[29] Also, in the CIBAIn the Article 53(b) exclusion clause and held that no general exclusion of inventions in the sphere of animate nature could be inferred from the EPC.[30] In HARVARD/Onco-mouse, however, the Examining Division initially refused to construe Article 53(b) narrowly and thus broke with the preceding opinions on the basis that there was different legislative intent behind the provision for plant and animal varieties.[31] The Appeals Board disagreed and noted that any such exception must, as repeatedly pointed out by the Boards of Appeal, be narrowly construed.[32] Because of HARVARD/Onco-mouse, the interpretation of Article 53(b) is unsettled.[33] In addition, by introducing Article 53(a) as a consideration in its patentability decision, the Examining Division thus set forth another consideration for member states to apply when determining patentability without any guidance other than the dicta from the HARVARD/Onco-mouse decision itself.This environment of inconsistent EPO case law may have a chilling effect on commercial biotechnology-a field where the economic incentive of the patent system is necessary to stimulate biotechnology research and development. This is true because biotechnology research is very expensive.[34] On the other hand, beside all these circumstances , in Europe, a debate on biotechnology patents started in the late 1980s with the aim of clarifying the dis tinction between what is patentable and what is not, and harmonising EU member states laws in this area. This led to the adoption on 6 July 1998 of EU Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The directive has been implemented by all EU member states. As early as 1999, the EPC contracting states decided to incorporate the directive as secondary legislation into the Implementing Regulations to the EPC. Together with the EPC articles on substantive patent law, these rules now provide the basis for deciding on the patentability of biotechnology applications at the EPO. The incorporation of the EU directive into the EPC strengthened the practice of the EPO in biotechnology, whilst putting greater focus on ethical considerations. [35] Though the Directive only lists four specific types of invention as being unpatentable on moral grounds ((i) processes for cloning human beings,[36](ii) processes for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human bei ngs,[37] (iii) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes,[38] (iv)processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to cause them suffering without any substantial medical benefit to man or animal, and also animals resulting from such processes.[39])It also confirms that elements of the human body, such as genes, can be patentable when isolated from the human body.[40]The Directive basically settled a lot of the ethical debates about patentability of biotech inventions in Europe.[41] On the other hand discussing about immoral inventions it can be taken into consideration that the moral concerns currently raised in conjunction with biotechnology patents are misplaced because they stem from a lack of understanding of the patent system. A patent system is not a means of safeguarding the public interest. It is primarily a commercial and industrial tool that encourages innovation, divorced from social and moral concerns.[42] Because a patent gr ant affords a limited commercial monopoly to use only what is already in existence, the grant of a patent is not an ethical event.[43] Instead, it is the regulatory system of a given nation that monitors social concerns as it implements general legislation-concerns which frequently encompass ethics and morality.[44]Thus, a patent makes the existing research on genetic engineering open and available to the public, which, in turn, permits public monitoring of genetic engineering.[45] In the context of the FDA decision on genetically engineered foods,[46] it was noted that genetic technology is too promising, to dismiss it out of a free-floating mistrust. If the public understood the technology, they would understand that part of their emotional reaction is irrational.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [47] It is evident, then, that ethical concerns raised about the patent system reflect concerns about biotechnology itself rather than the grant of the patent for that biotechnology. Ethical issues assoc iated with patents are inappropriately channeled fears of insufficient regulation.[48] Nevertheless, the patent system has become another arena for the campaigns of the Green Party, environmental groups, and animal rights activists to try to regulate science and technology.[49] In fact, biological patents have been granted routinely since the 1800s,[50] but ethical concerns did not enter the realm of the patent system until genetic engineering blossomed. Public concern over patenting biotechnology may reflect a public reaction to the scope and sophistication of genetic engineering involved in biotechnology due to misperceptions and unfounded fearof genetic engineering. This is illustrated by a series of decisions in the Europe. In 1970, the German Supreme Court allowed a living organism to be patented in the Red Dove case.[51] That case preceded the development of genetic engineering and was not followed by any significant public controversy. [52]However, following the advent o f genetic engineering the 1980 United States Supreme Court holding in Chakrabarty, which paralleled the Red Dove decision in principle by holding genetically engineered bacteria to be patentable, was followed by a public debate over the morality of patenting living matter.[53] Then, in 1987 the United States Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences determined in Ex Parte Allen that higher life forms, such as oysters, were patentable.[54] That decision triggered significantly more controversy [55]than a typical Board decision.[56] Finally, the 1987 PTO decision to allow genetically engineered animals such as the Onco-mouse to be patented stimulated tremendous controversy.[57] This litany indicates that debate over patenting biotechnology has sharpened with the sophistication and use of biotechnology despite the fact that the underlying scientific principles and patent procedures remain the same. There is a distinct paucity of case law that discusses ethical issues as a preclus ion to patentability. This is the case even in the EPO decisions despite the existence of Article 53(a), which explicitly allows a consideration of ethics for patentability. The EPO Guidelines indicate that Article 53(a) is to be invoked only in rare and extreme cases[58] and is aimed at preventing extreme situations such as riots and criminal behavior[59]The lack of discussion prior to HARVARD/Onco-mouse may indicate that ethics were generally not considered in patenting decisions. In fact, the Examining Division initially stated in HARVARD/Onco-mouse that it does not consider patent law an appropriate legislative tool and therefore declined to rule under Article 53(a).[60] To a limited extent, the EPO Guidelines on Article 53(a) and the cases are illuminating on the role ethics should play in the area of patentability. Ethics have been considered regarding the usefulness requirement that all patentable inventions must meet in both the EC and the United States. The issue is whether ethical issues render an invention useless according to statutory requirements for patentability.[61] In the United States, courts historically have been reluctant to deny patents based solely on ethical concerns[62] and consider an invention patentable so long as it has some moral use.[63] The drafters of the EPO Guidelines seem to concur in this result. The Guidelines state that a patent may be granted if an invention has both an offensive and non-offensive use.[64] The Guidelines set forth as an example a process for breaking open safes; that is a process that may be offensive if used by burglars, but which is potentially non-offensive and very useful if used by a locksmith in an emergency. [65] Imposing barriers to biotechnological patents will not prevent the advance of genetic engineering or address the ethical issues raised by scientific advancement. These issues will persist regardless of whether patents are granted.[66] Furthermore, even if the EC ignores the field of bi otechnology, its international competitors will not.[67] As the United States Supreme Court stated, The grant or denial of patents on micro-organisms is not likely to put an end to genetic research however whether claims are patentable may determine whether research efforts are accelerated by the hope of reward or slowed by want of incentives.[68] In Germany a special Commission of Inquiry on the Opportunities and Risks of Genetic Technology echoed these insights and stated that the types of criticism of genetic engineering are often simultaneously or primarily criticisms of over-arching strategies which have developed independently of genetic engineering involving basic problems of industrialization. [69] The Directive enacted by the EC because it recognizes the potential ethical concerns and the reality of scientific progress.[70] The international competitors of the EC are capitalizing on biotechnology and encouraging scientific innovation by allowing biotechnological patents t o issue under systems more lenient than the EPC. The Directive begins to address the EC gap in protection for biotechnological inventions, which are crucial to the commercial and international competitiveness of the EC, by mandating uniform legal protection. Although the scope of protection for biotechnological inventions under the EPC and the directive is limited, passage of the Directive was still a necessary step to take in narrowing the gap between the EC and its international competitors. Whether the Directive will achieve its goals remains to be seen. However, the history of the European Onco-mouse has shown that the current outlook for biotechnological innovations will remain bleak if no action is taken.The Onco-mouse currently stands alone in an area of inadequate and murky protection for biotechnology innovations. Without immediate action on the part of the Commission and member states, the EC will stand alone in its ethical debate as other nations simultaneously commerci alize biotechnology and manage ethical concerns associated with biotechnological inventions. [1] Roberto Bin, Sara Lorenzon, Nicola Lucchi, Biotech Innovations and Fundamental Rights (1st, Springer Science Business Media, 2012) 3 [2] European Patent office, Patent on Biotechnology (epo.org 2013) https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/biotechnology.html accessed 29 January 2015 [3] Convention on biological diversity 1992 Art. 2 [4] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 26 (2) [5] European Patent office, Patent on Biotechnology (epo.org 2013) https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/biotechnology.html accessed 29 January 2015 [6] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 53(a) [7] Ibid. Art. 53 (b) [8] Ibid. [9] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 53 (c) [10] Ibid. Art. 52 (2) (a) [11] Ibid. Art. 52 [12] Ibid. Art. 52 (1) [13] Ibid. Art. 52 (2) [14] Ibid. Art. 53 [15] Ibid. Art. 53(b) [16] Kevin W. OConnor, Patenting Animals and Other Living Things [1991] S.CAL. L. REV 65, 597,617 [17] European Patent Office, IV, Guidelines for exa mination in the European Patent Office (1992).p 3,4, [18] Exxon, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Aluminia Spineà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  [1998] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. p.389,391 [19] Andrew J A Parkes, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Significance of the European patent convention and the community patent conventionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , (Marry Robinson, 1999) p.51 [20] Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions Approved with the Following Amendments, 1992 (C 125) 183, 183 (Amendment No. 3) [21] See infra notes 62-74, 100 and accompanying text. [22] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 53 [23] Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention 1963, Art. 2(b) [24] John Hodgson, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Dutch Regulations Now in Force biotechnologyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1990) p. 284 [25] International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1978, art. 2(1), [26] See infra note 77 and accompanying text. [27] LUBRIZOL /Hybrid plants [1990] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 173 (EPO); CIBAGEIGY/ Propagating material, [1985] C Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 758 (EPO) [28] Fundamental changes in patent law have been previously sparked by court decisions, at least in the United States. See Exparte Allen, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. int. 1987) (genetically engineered oysters are potentially patentable, even though they are living matter); In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952,972,976 (manmade, biologically pure culture of microorganism is patentable because it only occurs in an impure form in nature). These decisions foreshadowed the PTO announcement, although it was most immediately prompted by the ruling in Allen. See Donald 3. Quigg, Animals-Patentability, Statement of April 7, 1989, reprinted in ANIMAL PATENTS, supra note 9, at 159 (outlining the holding of Allen and the rationale behind it, as well as the scope of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101). For a more detailed discussion of case law preceding and the PTO decision, see Bradford Chaucer, Note, Life, The Patent Office and Everything: Patentability foreshadowing of Lifeforms Created Through Bioengineering Techniques, 9 BRIDGEPORT L. REV. 413 (1988). [29]LUBRIZOJHybrid plants, [1990] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 173,177. (EPO) [30] CIBA-GEIGY/Propagating material, [1985] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. Vol. C. 758, 759 [31] HARVARD/Onco-mouse, [1990] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep.4,7. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid.; [34] IRA H. CARMEN, CLONING AND THE CONsTITbTON: AN INQUIRY INTO GOVERNMENTAL POLICYMAKING AND GENETIC EXPERIMENTATION 23, 26 (1985) [35] European Patent office, Patents on life? European law and practice for patenting biotechnological inventions (tomkins.com ) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCoQFjABurl=https://www.tomkins.com/uploads/what-we-do/patenting_biotechnological_inventions.pdfei=00_KVJuIJMHR7Qa59IGgDAusg=AFQjCNGgxAV_9Nyekl73ByDXVZeUXW-6Bwbvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGUcad=rja accessed 29 January 2015 [3 6] Directive 44/EC 1998, Art 2(a) [37] Ibid. Art 2 (b) [38] Ibid. Art 2 (c) [39] Ibid. Art 2 (d) [40] Ibid. Art 5 (2) [41] Suleman Ali , The ethics of biotech patenting: a dialogue about monopolies, human dignity and the cost of medicines (https://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/ 2015) https://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-ethics-of-biotech-patenting.html accessed 29 January 2015 [42] Robert P. Merges, Intellectual Property in Higher Life Forms: The Patent System and Controversial Technologies, (1988) 47 MD. L. REV. 1051, 1067-68 [43] See Bent, supra note 69, at 7; Debates, supra note 50, at 18 (right of prohibition only). [44] 148. See BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOBAL, supra note 2, at 203-04; Bent, supra note 69, at 7-8; Merges, supra note 146, at 1067-68. [45] 149. Debates, supra note 50, at 18. Rapporteur Rothley stated that: [46] Gene-Altered Food Called Safe, Facts on File World News Digest, (www.lexisnexis.co.uk/ 1992,) accessed 29 January 2015 [47] Molly ONeill, Geneticists, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Latest Discovery: Public Fear of Frankenfood, N.Y. TIMESà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ (1992) [48] 152. See generally Cantley, supra note 112, at 14-15 [49] (1991) 59 U. Mo. Kan. City L. Rev. 409,410; (1989) 42 OKLA. L. REV. 131 [50] Alex Barnum, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Biotech Labs Enraged by Bid to Patent Human Genesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , S.F. CHRON. (1991) [51] Rote Taube (Red Dove), 1 Int. Rev. of Indus. Prop. Copyright. (IIC) 136 (1970) [52] 156. See Straus, supra note 4, at 17-18. [53] 157. See generally id at 17-18 (indicating public concern about patenting higher organisms stems from the novelty of genetic engineering and a general lack of understanding of how the patent system functions). [54] (1987) 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425 [55] 159. See Manspeizer, supra note 9, at 418-19; Merges, supra note 146, at 1052. [56] 160. See Merges, supra note 146, at 1052. [57] 161. See supra notes 68-70 and accompanyin g text (discussing legislative activity following the grant of the Onco-mouse patent). [58] EPO Guidelines, IV, 3.1. [59] Ibid. [60] Harvard/Onco-mouse, (1990) Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 4, 11. [61] See Merges, supra note 146, at 1062-63 [62] (1977) 200 U.S.P.Q. 801, 802;Fuller v. Berger, 120 F. 274,275-76 (7th Cir. 1903);Lowell v. Lewis 15 F. Cas. 1018,1019 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817) [63] Klein v. Russell, 86 U.S. 433, 467 (1873) [64] EPO Guidelines, IV, 3.3 [65] Ibid. [66] 181.COOK Er. AL, supra note 2,at 120. [67] 182. See supra notes 51-59 and accompanying text. [68] Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 317. [69] BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FUTURE SOCIETY: SCENARIOS AND OPTIONS FOR EUROPE 117, 123 (Edward Yoxen Vittorio Di Martino eds., 1989). [70] [TM1]Add reference [TM2]Refer [TM3]ref [TM4]ref

An Analysis of Freedom Riders The Documentary by Stanley...

Stanley Nelson chronicles the journey of a group of individuals, known as the Freedom Riders, whom fought for the rights of African Americans to have the same amenities and access as the Caucasians. The purpose of the Freedom Rides was to deliberately violate the Jim Crow laws of the south that prohibited blacks and whites from mixing together on buses and trains. Expectedly, many of the Freedom Riders were beaten and the majority was imprisoned. This carried on for the majority of 1961 and culminated with the Interstate Commerce Commission issuing an order to end the segregation in bus and rail stations. Nelson encapsulates this entire movement in about two hours. At the end of the two hours, the viewer is emotionally tied to the†¦show more content†¦It gives us one of the many messages the movement gave us, which is that the strength of a movement lays within the determination of the people. It is immediately conveyed when the shot began with Rep. Lewis’ words â₠¬Å"and that nothing, but nothing, was going to stop this movement.† Nelson slowly backs out of the shot to reveal more members of the Freedom Riders as the music intensifies. This reveals the gradual increase of participation in the Freedom Rides. The shot began with just one white person and Nelson is conveying the small number of whites that participated in the beginning. As the shot expands, more white people are included proportionately to the blacks (more blacks than whites). While the shot is backing out, Nelson randomly replaces one Rider with another. I believe that he is suggesting while each rider was autonomous, they were all one. As one, they all share the collective goal of ultimately destroying segregation. The music that is playing in the background lends incredible support to the shot. Nelson is trying to create a sense of understanding of what these individuals endured while at the same time creating a sense of optimism that the hardships the Freedom Riders en dured would not be in vein. The collection of Riders fades, as the music continues to play, to a newspaper heading that reads â€Å"ICC Forbids Bus station Segregation.† Quickly, it fades to another headline that reads â€Å"Bus Terminals Told to Mix Up or Close Up† as historian Raymond

A Reluctant Product of Therapy free essay sample

Like many pediatricians and other adults who spend most of their time around children, she used false enthusiasm to cover up her other emotions. And also like many other adults who make spending time with children their jobs, she lived under the assumption that children were unable to see through this falsehood, and that children would somehow find this enthusiasm entertaining, or comforting, or relatable. But every time she smiled at me, the skin on her face bunching up under her cheeks and forehead to make room for her unnaturally large grin, I would cry. Because instead of her smile being reassuring, it confirmed to me that something was wrong. Not only that something was wrong, but that something was wrong with me. Her name was Ann, and she was one of my physical therapists. For three or four one-month spouts between the ages of three and twelve, my mother dragged me to her twice a week to undergo some new-wave quack therapy called Tomatis, a treatment in which I wore enormous headphones and listened to high-pitched opera music for hours on end, which, the doctor claimed, was supposed to cure everything from ADD to depression. We will write a custom essay sample on A Reluctant Product of Therapy or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page At times I have convinced myself that all the time I spent with Ann was pointless. She was a board-certified torturer. And who was I for living through this? I was the glorious survivor, who was able to outlast her condescension and her misreading of my abilities, and through a philosophy of self-reliance and emotional fortitude, let my suppressed intelligence and charm blossom! It was, at least, easier to believe this. However, I have come to realize going through therapy as a child increased my success in social and academic spheres as an adult. I have to admit now that as a child I was slow to learn to read. I remember sitting in my 1st grade classroom with my paper reading exercise book, which had shorter words than everybody else’s, stumbling through â€Å"The Cat and the Mat†. My mild cerebral palsy was also something visible; I have home videos of me running like a duck on the soccer field, my right foot making a ninety-degree angle outward with each step. Perha ps I was just a late-bloomer for reading, and my cerebral palsy magically disappeared when I matured. But more likely, it was the many hours I spent in therapy that propelled me to be a good student, if not an exceptional athlete, as a young adult. My physical therapist, Skippy forced me to my physical limits on the treadmill, even though my limit might have been fifteen minutes on the lowest speed. I learned to take sports, and many other aspects of my life, seriously, not covering them up with shoulder shrugs and sarcastic jokes. My reading tutor Erin nurtured me to love reading, putting an MM on the bottom of every page I read correctly. The pleasure of candied bribery turned into actual enjoyment as I was able to move up from such boring books as â€Å"The Cat and the Mat† into riveting classics such as Harriet the Spy. Now reading has not only turned into one of my favorite free-time pleasures, but is also one of my major academic strengths; being able to read well and u nderstand words has allowed me to write good research papers for history and to understand complex concepts in my biology textbook. Even Ann, while I was listening to that terrible music, engaged me in games of Scrabble Jr. and checkers, fostering my competitiveness and love for solving puzzles. Therapy is a gift I have learned to appreciate; many of the things I consider part of my unique trademark – my love of reading, my love of puzzles, my frankness and sincerity learned in defiance to the tyranny of fake smiles – were a result of therapy. Therapy made me who I am.