The organization took that position in an op-ed piece in the Wisconsin State Journal last week. It was written by Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director, and Elizabeth Donley, general counsel.
They wrote:
"In a guest column on (June 26)Monday, John (M.) Simpson of the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights argued that the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation is impeding life-saving research.Among the evidence they cited for their position was an analysis of ESC research articles published worldwide between 2002 and 2005 that showed that 67 percent of those articles cited Wisconsin's stem cell lines. What that also shows is dominant market share – not as strong as Microsoft's but very strong. (Now there's an interesting question: How is WARF like Microsoft?)
"Nothing could be further from the truth."
They continued:
"In short, California wants to benefit from stem-cell science by using patents and licenses created using Wisconsin's patent rights to overtake Wisconsin as the national leader in stem-cell research. That is an understandable goal. California also want to do so without recognizing the contributions of Wisconsin's scientists, which may be understandable, but is not fair or legal."Simpson authored another op-ed piece in The Sacramento Bee, which is nearly identical to his earlier piece in Wisconsin. However, it carried this additional paragraph.
"Earlier this spring, Dr. Robert Goldstein, chief scientific officer for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, told a CIRM committee meeting that the patents are 'a major inhibition to productive scientific research.' Because of WARF's claims, Goldstein said, his foundation has funded scientists in other countries 'to create new and better stem cell lines, and that process … is currently flourishing.' U.S. companies interested in conducting stem cell research report they have had difficulty getting funding because of the WARF patent demands."The Bee has a feature that allows its readers to comment online on op-ed pieces. Concerning Simpson's piece, one said,
"I hereby patent humanity! Anyone being born after today must send me 1 dollar, including any judges."Obviously nobody should steal another's property, but in this case WARF may have difficulty in communicating its message to the public.
Of the "67%" comment, the actual text was: Dr. Jason Owen-Smith of the University of Michigan recently
ReplyDeletepublished an analysis of all human embryonic stem cell research articles published in the world between 2002 and 2005, revealing that 67 percent of those articles cited WiCell's stem-cell lines in their research.
One has to be careful to distinguish between citations in scientific research articles and market share.
To date, there is no evidence that WARF/WiCell has brought a patent litigation action against any academic researcher. It is not in their interest to sue people who are not making a commercial product, but who might open up commercial markets. Further, the holding of Merck v. Integra suggests that they would not sue academic workers. [The impact of Merck v. Integra on stem cell research is covered in 88 JPTOS 239 (March 2006).]
Also, the Michigan survey covered "the world," and outside the US, people are free of the constraints of US patents. One suspects the WARF people were making a point about something other than "market share" when they cited the Michigan study.
The issues between WARF and CIRM will concern the commercial partners of CIRM. However, until CIRM crystallizes its policy on intellectual property, it is hard to tell how the WARF/CIRM "dialogue" will play out.
[See also entries at IPBiz.blogspot.com]