User:Teresa.maclean/sandbox

Controversy
Justice Binnie noted that the outcome of this case takes Canada on a different very trajectory than other countries, including the United States, Japan and Europe. This fact has led some to argue that there is a risk that biotechnology investment will be reduced in the aftermath of the decision.

The majority's reasoning in drawing the line between higher and lower life forms has been called an "rationally indefensible distinction." It has also been said that the majority's conclusion that higher but not lower organisms are made of something other than a composition of matter is an "inexplicable reliance on vitalism" and "more properly a matter of religion than a matter of law."

Others have found controversy in the court's belief in ethical neutrality in relation to animal welfare under the Canadian patent system. This argument is based on the idea that patents are fully constituted property rights, providing patentees with a default level of entitlement and would undoubtedly "skew the utilitarian calculus of animal welfare to the advantage of human animals and to the detriment of non-human animals." For that reason, Wendy Adams has argued that the ethical review of the treatment of animals should be an additional criterion for patentability. Others have argued that animal welfare issues that may arise in the course of patent applications are based on the fact that animals are considered property and these issues are best dealt with outside the confines of the Patent Act.

Additionally, in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser case. There it was held that Percy Schmeiser infringed the gene patents claims through the use of a plant containing those genes. This case, in effect, provides patent protection that was not granted in the Harvard College v Canada to so called higher life forms by extending the protection of a patented gene or cell to the entire organism. The reasoning of the dissent in the Monsanto case closely followed that of the majority in the Harvard College case, stating that one cannot patent higher life forms such as entire plants even though one is able to patent products and processes.