This article details how patent law works to create discrete, immutable biological ‘objects’. This socio-legal maneuver is necessary to distinguish these artifacts from the unwieldy (and thus unpatentable) realm of the natural world. The creation of ‘objects’ also serves the interests of capital, where a stable, unchanging, immutable object goes hand in hand with commodification. Yet this stabilization is incomplete. Pointing to a variety of different examples, this article illustrates how biotech patents do not speak to specific, immutable things. Biotech patents, rather, are better understood as ontologically fluid (though, as discussed, this fluidity can only occur within limits), which is to say their identity cannot be ‘fixed’ — or, at least, not without undermining the very existence of today’s biotechnology regime. The article concludes by speaking briefly about how this mutability is perpetuating certain inequalities, particularly between holders of various property forms.
Andrews, L. ( 2002) ‘Genes and Patent Policy: Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights’, Nature3: 803-8.
2.
Bakker, K. ( 2007) ‘The "Commons" Versus the "Commodity": Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’ , Geoforum39(3): 430-55.
3.
Benowitz, S. ( 2002) ‘French Challenge to BRCA1 Patent UnderliesEuropean Discontent’, Journal of National Cancer Institute94: 80-81.
4.
Berg, M. and A. Mol (eds) (1998) Differences in Medicine: Unraveling Practices, Techniques and Bodies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
Biagioli, M. ( 2006) ‘Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors’, Social Research73(4): 1129-72.
6.
Buttel, F. ( 2005) ‘The Environmental and Post-environmental Politics of Genetically Modified Crops and Foods’, Environmental Politics14: 309-23.
7.
Cambrosio, A. and P. Keating ( 1995) Exquisite Specificity. New York : Oxford University Press.
8.
Carolan, M. ( 2008) ‘From Patent Law to Regulation: The Ontological Gerrymandering of Biotechnology’, Environmental Politics17(5): 749-65.
9.
Choi. C. ( 2002) ‘And Then There Were Five: A Hidden Force Could be Changing the Face of the Universe’, New Scientist 2 March(2332): 7.
10.
Collins H.M. and T. Pinch ( 1993) The Golem. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Conley, J. and R. Makowski ( 2003) ‘Back to the Future: Rethinking the Product of Nature Doctrine as a Barrier to Biotechnology Patents’, Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society85: 371-410.
12.
Davies, P. ( 1995) About Time. New York: Simon and Schuster.
13.
De Laet, M. and A. Mol. ( 2000) ‘The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology’ , Social Studies of Science30: 225-63.
14.
Doll, J. ( 1998) ‘The Patenting of DNA’, Science280: 689-90.
15.
Eisenberg, R. ( 2000) ‘Re-examining the Role of Patents in Appropriating the Value of DNA Sequences’, Emory Law School49: 783-800.
16.
Eisenberg, R. ( 2002) ‘How Can You Patent Genes?’, American Journal of Bioethics2(3): 3-11.
17.
Eisenberg, R. ( 2006) ‘Patents and Data Sharing in Public Science’ , Industrial and Corporate Change15(6): 1013-31.
18.
Gieryn, T. ( 1983) ‘Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists’ , American Sociological Review48: 781-95.
19.
Gipstein, R. ( 2002) ‘The Isolation and Purification Exception to the General Unpatentability of Products of Nature’, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review4: 1-44.
20.
Jasanoff, S. ( 1987) ‘Contested Boundaries in Policy-relevant Science’ , Social Studies of Science17: 195-230.
21.
Jasanoff, S. ( 2003) ‘Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science’, Minerva41: 223-44.
22.
Joerges, B. ( 1999) ‘Do Politics Have Artifacts?’, Social Studies of Science29: 411-31.
23.
Kevles, D. ( 2007) ‘Patents, Protections, and Privileges: The Establishment of Intellectual Property in Animals and Plants’, Isis98: 323-31.
24.
Kevles, D. ( 2002) ‘A History of Patenting Life in the United States with Comparative Attention to Europe and Canada’, Report to the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, EU, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities .
25.
Kloppenburg, J. (1988) First the Seed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, T. (1970 [1962]) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Latour, B. ( 1992) ‘Where Are the Missing Masses? Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts’, pp. 225-58 in W. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
27.
Latour, B. ( 1993) We Have Never Been Modern. New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf.
28.
Law, J. ( 2002) ‘Objects and Spaces’, Theory, Culture & Society19: 91-105.
29.
Law, J. and A. Mol ( 2008) ‘Globalization in Practice: On the Politics of Boiling Pigswill’, Geoforum39: 133-43.
30.
Law, J. and V. Singleton ( 2005) ‘Object Lessons’, Organization12(3): 331-55.
31.
Lee, N. and S. Brown ( 1994) ‘Otherness and the Actor Network: The Undiscovered Continent’, American Behavioral Scientist36: 772-90.
32.
Lewontin, R. ( 2000) The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
33.
McAfee, K. ( 2003) ‘Neoliberalism on the Molecular Scale’ , Geoforum34(2): 203-19.
34.
Mol, A. ( 2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
35.
Mulkay, M. ( 1976) ‘Norms and Ideology in Science’, Social Science Information15: 637-56.
36.
Muller, B. ( 2006) ‘Infringing and Trespassing Plants’ , Focaal: European Journal of Anthropology48: 83-98.
37.
Nozick, R. ( 1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York : Basic Books.
38.
Purdham, S. ( 2007) ‘The Fictions of Autonomous Invention: Accumulation by Dispossession, Commodification and Life Patents in Canada’, Antipode39(3): 406-29.
39.
Schulman, L. ( 1997) Time’s Arrow and Quantum Measurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
40.
Schulman, L. ( 1999) ‘Opposite Thermodynamic Arrows of Time’ , Physical Review Letters83: 5419.
41.
Schurman, R. ( 2004) ‘Fighting "Frankenfoods": Industry Opportunity Structures and the Efficacy of the Anti-Biotech Movement in Western Europe’ , Social Problems51(2): 243-68.
42.
Strathern, M. ( 1996) ‘Cutting the Network’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute2: 517-35.
43.
Tatum, J. ( 1995) Energy Possibilities: Rethinking Alternatives and the Choice-making Process. Albany: SUNY Press.
44.
Thacker, E. ( 2005) The Global Genome: Biotechnology, Politics, Culture . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
Walzer, M. ( 1984) ‘Liberalism and the Art of Separation’ , Political Theory12(3): 315-30.
46.
Winner, L. ( 1980) ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’, Daedalus109(1): 121-36.
47.
Winner, L. ( 1986) The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
Woolgar, S. and G. Cooper ( 1999) ‘Do Artifacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges, and Other Urban Legends in STS’, Social Studies of Science29: 433-49.
49.
Wynne, B. ( 2005) ‘Reflexing Complexity: Post-genomic Knowledge and Reductionist Returns in Public Science’, Theory, Culture & Society22: 67-94.
50.
Zweiger, G. ( 2001) Transducing the Genome: Information, Anarchy, and Revolution in the Biomedical Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
