Legal This and That

Legal This and That

The San Jose Mercury News has an editorial today (registration may be required) about current issues regarding California Prop 71. The editorial says that the legal delay has had the benefit of giving the CIRM the opportunity to work out some structural issues, and says that the agency should work out a compromise with legislators (notably State Senator Deborah Ortiz) about oversight. It advocates for disclosing “financial conflicts at all levels of grant review” to maintain the agency’s integrity, especially in light of the South Korean scandal.

Also in the news, Wisconsin Technology Today has an article about the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation patent on stem cells and its chances under European patent rules. The application is for a preparation of human and primate embryonic stem cells, which was rejected by the European patent agency in 2004, according to the article. It has been appealed, but a ruling is not expected any time soon due to the number of issues that are raised: European rules do not allow patents for parts of the “human body,” which a differentiated embryonic stem cells could potentially be interpreted as. If this is overcome, a more significant issue might be that the European rules do not allow patents for products which make use of human embryos. Other issues involve the patent law wording in other languages, which bring in some ambiguities inherent to multilingualism (that’s a really interesting issue!), and of course difference between narrow and broad interpretations of the rules. WARF might have a different success in trying to patent the stem cells in countries that are favorable to stem cell research.

The US as Seen From Abroad

The US as Seen From Abroad

Several members of the United States Congress are meeting with Britoish scientists and officials in the UK about stem cell research, and the British media is full of buzz that Americans are falling behind. The BBC quotes Republican Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, who favors embryonic stem cell research, as being concerned that the US is falling behind the UK and several Asian nations, and also as seeing a brain drain. The Guardian quotes him as saying that leadership has shifted to the UK, although it also quotes a member of the Royal Society, equivalent to the US National Academy of Sciences, as saying that the restriction in the US should not be seen as good for Britons, as many British patients benefit from international research into their illnesses. (The Guardian article also has a nice series of links to other articles and to a Q&A on stem cells, a good resource.) Reuters also covers the story, as does the Financial Times of London. (Reuters attributes the leadership quote to Rep. Diane Genette, part of the delegation, in the form of a statement.) The Reuters story has been picked up by some US media as well. Research Day lists the entire party as Castle and “Reps. Diana DeGette, D-CO, and Jim Langevin, D-RI, together with staff from the offices of Sens Bill Frist, R-TN, Edward Kennedy, D-MA, Arlen Specter, R-PA, and Tom Harkin, D-IA.” This also gives a link to a Royal Society press release, which includes statements and comments from a number of people.

This is politics, not ground-breaking research, so I won’t linger on it, but I think it’s important for American citizens to be aware of perceptions of American policy by other nations.