Lawmakers are prepared to make a decision that would ban the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from issuing patents on human organisms.

This provision would ban patents on genetically modified human embryos, fetuses and humans, but is promising not to hinder embryonic stem cell research or patents on cells, genes or other biological products.

Since 1987 the U.S. patent office has rejected any patent claim for human beings at any stage of development. An attempt by Congress to put this into law has created a debate between the biotechnology industry and pro-life supporters of the legislation.

Rep. David Joseph Weldon, R-FL, a Pro-life advocate, proposed the provision, arguing that Congress should codify the patent office’s existing rule that human organisms are not subject to patents.

Weldon has backed many efforts to ban the cloning of human embryonic cells for medical research, making the current legislation especially controversial. Weldon, among many pro-life advocates, believes stem cell research is morally wrong.

“Creating cloned live-born human children necessarily begins by creating cloned human embryos, a process which some also propose as a way to create embryos for experimental research. Research cloning will pave the way for reproductive cloning,” Weldon said in a statement.

Earlier this year, Weldon sponsored a bill that imposed an all-out ban on human cloning passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.

University of Wisconsin Associate Dean of the Law School Alto Charo said the provision was inserted for purely political reasons to try to find every possible way to enshrine federal law that an embryo is equivalent to a live-born baby.

“It’s a way of strong-arming the bill into federal law. The appropriations bill is so huge and covers so many things, by the end, no one is going to rock the boat because this would hold the whole bill,” Charo said.

While most researchers and biotechnology firms agree that patents should not be issued on human embryos, they think the wording of the language of the bill could be too broad and that a ban could threaten current and future research.

“The effect on scientific research is very difficult to assess. This is a very complex issue because it is very tricky to define humanism,” Charo said. “What if a gene present in humans was inserted into a pig embryo. Could this be called a human embryo now?”

According to proponents of the bill, borderline issues such as these, will be viewed and left up to the patent office to address.

Charo also noted that rejecting a patent also affects investors’ willingness to put money into laboratories, and this could also ultimately affect scientific research.

“Investors hope for a return on their original investment with the basic research, but with no patent, there is no return,” Charo said.

Patents give the holder a temporary monopoly over the commercial exploitation of a particular invention. The patent usually lasts about 17 to 18 years.

If Congress approves the bill, it should go to the president this week. If approved, the bill will last only one year unless it is renewed.