FROM: Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research

Stem Cell Action Alert
IS YOUR SENATOR A SWING VOTE?
PLEASE CHECK THE LIST BELOW

As the Congressional Year Comes to A Close,
A Harmful Intellectual Property Amendment Has
Passed In The House of Representatives Leaving
Research Under Attack.

On July 23rd, the House passed an amendment on human patenting offered by
Dave Weldon (R-FL) as part of the Commerce-Justice-State, and Judiciary
Appropriations bill (H.R. 2799). The future of biomedical research could
be impaired by this mischievous amendment. Specifically, House Amendment
286 would prohibit the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from issuing any
“patents on claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.” Urge
your Senator to oppose the amendment should it come up during debate on
the Senate floor and to strike this language from any final Commerce,
Justice, State and Judiciary (CJS) Appropriations bill. It is especially
important that you take the time to write your Senator if he or she is a
CJS Conferee.

CJS Conferees
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Patty Murray (D-WA)

The amendment would forbid the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)
from granting patents on processes and products derived from embryonic
stem cell research and therapeutic cloning (somatic cell nuclear
transfer), which could slow or halt biomedical research aimed at
providing cures and treatments for the millions of Americans suffering
from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries,
heart disease, ALS, and other debilitating conditions. It appears to be
an underhanded way of making the U.S. surrender its leadership role in
the development of life-saving cures using stem cell research, somatic
cell nuclear transfer, and other technologies. By prohibiting patent
rights, this amendment removes any financial incentive for companies to
undertake this type of economically risky research. Talking points are
listed below. Please call or write your Senator today.

Opponents of vital research technologies should not amend the patent laws
to enforce their ideological agenda. Had no patents been issued for
recombinant DNA, research in this important area would surely have
stopped. The same could hold true for new areas of important research.
Moreover, this amendment was offered without an opportunity for the
Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction on patent matters, to
review what impact this amendment might have on medical research
developments.

Message points for your call/letter:


The language is vague, overly broad and would jeopardize many
human-derived biotechnology inventions. Among the biotech inventions that
would be placed in jeopardy are: stem cells and stem cell production
methods, all cell and tissue therapy products and methods that include
creating replacement tissue and organs, and methods for therapeutic
cloning.


The language “encompassing a human organism” creates uncertainty about
the PTO’s definition of a “human organism.” There is no clear indication
for where something ceases to be human and becomes something else. Would
a method of making human stem cells for therapeutic purposes be
considered a claim that “encompasses” a human organism?


Investment and research into developing biotechnology products would halt
if the amendment were enacted into law. It takes 10 to 12 years and
approximately 800 million dollars to bring a biotechnology product into
the market. Investors need assurance that their investment in this risky
endeavor will eventually pay off. Without intellectual property
protection on products developed through biotechnology, investors would
not place resources into inventions that cannot be protected by the
patent system.


Current PTO practice prevents patenting of human beings. Current PTO
practice prohibits patents on subject matter that includes a human being
within its scope.


Revising patent laws in order to deal with ethical concerns can have
serious long-term implications for all industry sectors. Revision of the
patent laws to exclude one subject area from patent eligibility can lead
to other types of exclusions. For example, opening up the Patent Act
could open the door to excluding patents on virtually any item or
industrial product.


For more information, please visit our Web site, www.camradvocacy.org.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn