Stem Cell Patent Torpedoes Research

g8orade writes: "This story says the University of Winsconsin owns patents that may prevent anyone spending that federal money soon. "As they carry out President Bush's plan for government financing of embryonic stem cell studies, federal health officials confront a daunting challenge: U.S. patent 6,200,806, a claim to the human embryonic stem cell." Originally in the NYT, this is a link to the not free account-requiring Charlotte Observer."

Comments

I still don't get it

[mac123]

I continue to call the "need" for federal funding.

The stem cells that would be used are covered by a seemingly comprehensive patent by UW.

Univ. of Wis. has given exclusive rights to Geron (a company).

Geron will own anything done with these stem cells, including any "cures" that are discovered.

Geron is (presumably) willing to invest money (and already has) in the research in order to make money from this.

Why do we need federal funding of this? It seems like transferring taxpayer funds to the bottom line of hugebiotechcorp.com

Re:I still don't get it

[KahunaBurger]

Why do we need federal funding of this? It seems like transferring taxpayer funds to the bottom line of hugebiotechcorp.com

And this is news to you why? OK, sarcasm aside, you know that the US pours money every single year into different kinds of research. And private foundations and individuals pour another few million into "aids research" or "cancer research" or other focused causes. Then government and publicly funded hospitals use their resources to help with drug trials. Have you ever wondered why you never hear a pharm company say "we've decided to release this drug from our patent early because of the huge government and public investment we made it with."?

The patent likely won't effect which biotech company makes a mint off other peoples pain and says "but we paid all this research and development (with your tax dollors)". Stem cells exist, the patent is likely on a particular extraction or culturing method (sorry, don't have time to look for sure before work). But the fact that all this money would eventually lead to propriatory drugs and techniques being sold back to us as the fruits of our wonderful free market was a given from the start.

And if /. is still around then we can listen to the libertarians tell us how any goverment interference in drug proffiteering would lead to no more investment and research like what gave us this wonderful stem cell work. Ugh.

Kahuna Burger

Good side vs. Bad Side

[ImaLamer]

This is what I'm worried about:

"In turn, the foundation has granted rights to a biotechnology company, Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., giving that company considerable say over who ultimately profits from stem cell therapies."

Of course you can't believe what other people are posting, no one is going to regulate sexual reproduction etc. The problem would be, who is going to be helped because of the research. Your local HMO and drug company is going to be helped way more than your Parkinsons striken mother.

More? Read on:

"I don't want people to see us as an 800-pound gorilla," Carl Gulbrandsen, the foundation's managing director, said. "We will work very hard with the government to make sure that there is access to this technology and that our patents are not an impediment to researchers."

Then why did you patent it in the first place? More? Read on:

"As far as experts know, the United States is the only nation to have issued a patent on human embryonic stem cells" [from the article]

Of course we are! And we'll be the first to reward a patent [if you read on, you are legally bound not to take my patent idea] for breathing in through your nose and out through your mouth!

And what tells me pro-life groups [Pat Robertson] will try to buy the patent holders out?

A serious problem

[mdw2]

One of the most serious problems we have today with the patent office is this: the allowing of patenting of discoveries. Discoveries are not inventions, no one invented the stem cell, they simply found it. This is the same mindset that allows companies to patent parts of the human genetic code. I believe we have bigger issues to worry about with the patent office than software.

Re:Power of Patents

[kcbrown]

No. Having a patent on X means that anyone who wishes to make X or use X must first obtain your permission (i.e., a license).

That means that if you own a patent on X, then anyone who needs to use X in order to do their research must obtain a license from you. It means that you can prevent their research if their research requires that they be able to use X.

U of W has, from what I've read, a patent on the growth and maintenance (among other things) of human stem cells. Obviously such growth and maintenance are required if you want to do research on them!

A patent isn't like a trademark. It's a monopoly on a product or a process or a method.

So if, for instance, you wish to research other ways of growing stem cells, you still have to either obtain a license from U of W, obtain stem cells from someone who has licensed the patent, or obtain them from somewhere outside the country, since you need stem cells to experiment with. In short, this patent is a roadblock in front of stem cell research in general.

Because its role can be only to hinder research and development, this patent should be ruled as unconstitutional as it blatently flies in the face of the Constitutional purpose of patents.
Too bad only laws can be ruled unconstitutional...