Re: Patenting indigenous peoples' cells (was: Wow!)

From: Dan L Burk <BURKDANL[_at_]shu.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:47:57 -0400

On 7/8/98, Max Dashu <maxdashu[_at_]lanminds.com> wrote:
>
> Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > there would have been no cell line had there been no intervention
> > by Dr. Golde, so any unique property that Moore's cells might have
> > had would not have been available for use.
>
> Neither would Dr. Golde have been able to perform his manipulations
> without Moore's cells, as you concede:

But this is irrelevant for patenting purposes, any more than, say, the "unique properties" of the Pacific Yew are relevant to the patentability of taxol. Patents do not issue for products of nature -- only the products of human inventorship.

> But the issue of taking cells for the purpose of manipulation and
> patenting without informed consent is extremely problematic. For
> native peoples to react is entirely reasonable, especially given the
> history of nonconsensual appropriations, and not paranoid or merely
> the result of outside manipulation, as was implied in a previous
> post.

But no instance of non-consensual appropriation *has* occurred, and the steering committee of the Human Genome Diversity project has gone out of its way -- indeed, possibly too far out of its way -- to insure that such instances do not occur, requiring not only individual informed consent, but community informed consent before sampling can occur.

And I implied nothing -- I stated it directly. There is clear evidence of outside disinformation campaigns among indigenous populations.

---

Dan L. Burk
Seton Hall University
burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu

---

Received on Sun Jul 12 1998 - 04:43:08 GMT