On 6/26/98, Michael Bradley <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com> wrote:
>
> You think copyright law can be controversial? How about patenting
> blood cells of indigenous peoples?
>
> http://weber.u.washington.edu/~radin/guaymi.htm
Switching from my copyright hat to my biotech hat -- although I have
occasionally been known to wear both at once -- the article cited was
written by an activist with an axe to grind, and is unfortunately
grossly misleading. Among other disinformation and misinformation:
- Naturally occurring cells almost certainly cannot be patented
under U.S. law -- the cells that were the subject of the patent
applications were artificially manipulated cell lines derived from
human cells.
- The research subjects from whom the original samples were taken
were not uninformed about the uses to which their cells were put,
since NIH requires informed consent before samples can be taken. In
all the situations I am aware of (including those described in the
article) the NIH researchers have either offered or actually entered
into profit-sharing agreements with the tribes where samples were
drawn, contingent on the (unlikely) development of a commercial
product from the research.
- The patent applications described in the article were in no way
connected with the international genome sampling project discussed in
the article.
- Essentially all the opposition toward the sampling project by
indigenous peoples has been generated by RAFI and related groups that
have been less than forthright in their representations to the
tribes.
And so on, and so on, and so on. It is unfortunate that the author
of the article chose to misrepresent what occured -- there are plenty
of serious and real issues surrounding genetic research without
having to make up fictional ones.
Dan L. Burk
Seton Hall University
burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu
Received on Mon Jun 29 1998 - 13:58:16 GMT