Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Harvard mouse patent establishes an exclusive right over a genetically modified non-human mammal. In this thesis, I will first provide an overview of the ethical and policy arguments invoked in the context of the debate over patenting of higher life forms. I will then analyze how, practically, the interests at stake have been differently weighed at the international level. Particular attention will be devoted to the Supreme Court of Canada landmark cases: Harvard (2002) and Monsanto (2004). In Canada higher life forms are not patentable but may achieve a nearly identical legal protection as if they were patented. There can be some doubts about the consistency of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision not to allow patents on higher life forms for ethical reasons while, at the same time, to grant a patent on something that does not present moral concerns but that, de facto, gives similar market power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".