Friends,

This message was issued this afternoon by PAN and the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. Please read below, but suffice to say that if this proposal makes it out of conference committee and goes to the President's desk, stem cell research at the embryonic level is dead - period.

PS - The Capitol Hill swwitchboard number is 202 224 3121. The operator will direct your call to your congressperson or Senator. Conferees will be in sesssion this weekend, so feel free to call on Saturday. Thanks.       .

Greg Wasson
AJ Campbell

National Field Representatives - Parkinson's Action Network
707-795-7017


LauraJane Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:From: "LauraJane Cohen"
To: "Laura Jane Cohen"
Subject: Stem Cell Action Alert
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:07:26 -0500


Stem Cell Action Alert

A Harmful Piece of Legislation Is About to Be Enacted

That Could Cripple Stem Cell Research and Other Medical Research!


This alert needs very quick action by you all.  Without your help, the future of biomedical research could be significantly impaired.

On July 23rd, the House passed an amendment on human patenting offered by U.S.  Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) as part of the FY2004 Commerce-Justice-State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill (H.R.  2799).   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.

This language is about to become enacted as part of the larger appropriations process possibly within the next 48 hours.

Please call the U.S. Representatives listed below ASAP and let them know this legislation harms medical research and thereby the prospects for cures and improved treatments for suffering patients!

Don’t let the opponents of stem cell research block

vital biomedical research work!




IS YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS

A SWING VOTE?

Please call the U.S. Representatives listed below ASAP and let them know this legislation harms medical research and thereby the prospects for cures and improved treatments for suffering patients!



Bill Young, R-FL10
Chairman        David Obey D-WI7
Ranking Minority Member
Ralph Regula, R-OH16
Jerry Lewis, R-CA41
Frank R. Wolf, R-VA10
James Walsh, R-NY25
David L. Hobson, R-OH7
Henry Bonilla, R-TX23
Jack Kingston, R-GA1
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-NJ11
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., R-WA5
Tom Latham, R-IA4
Virgil Goode, I-VA5
Ray LaHood, R-IL18      John P. Murtha, D-PA12
Alan B. Mollohan, D-WV1
Marcy Kaptur, D-OH9
Jose E. Serrano, D-NY16
Rosa L. DeLauro, D-CT3
Maurice D. Hinchey, D-NY22
Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-CA34
Sam Farr, D-CA17
Allen Boyd, D-FL2
Chaka Fattah, D-PA2

Background information, a suggested script,

 and talking points are below.

Suggested Script

(feel free to edit it to reflect your personal situation)

“Hello, may I speak to the Legislative Assistant who handles the Member’s appropriations work?”
Once the appropriate staffer is on the line or to whoever is taking a message:
“My name is _____________, and I am from CITY/STATE.  Given that the Representative is a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is important for HE/SHE to know that I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of the Weldon patent Amendment in the omnibus package; this language is incredibly harmful to present and future biomedical research efforts, such as stem cell research!”

“This issue is extremely important to me because I (insert your PD connection here) have Parkinson’s disease and this prohibition will have a chilling effect on biomedical research—which may preclude a cure or new or improved treatments for not only Parkinson’s, but also other diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, cancer, and Alzheimer’s that affect many millions of Americans!”

“Does the Representative share my opposition?”  If yes— see #1 and if no, see #2:
1.      YES  “Thanks very much.  Would the Representative speak to Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey, as well as other conferees and ask them to oppose the inclusion of the Weldon patent language?”

2.      NO  “I am sorry to hear that.   Why?”


“Thank you for your time and consideration.  I look forward to receiving a response from the Representative as to the final outcome.”

Background:
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.  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.

Additional Talking Points:
Ø       The language is vague, overly broad and would put stem cell research at risk.  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.

Ø       The language encompassing a human organism creates uncertainty about the PTOs 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?

Ø       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.

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

Ø       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 the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research web site, www.camradvocacy.org or call PAN at 1-800-850-4726.





Laura Jane Cohen
Director of Outreach
Parkinson's Action Network
1000 Vermont Ave., NW
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
ph: 202-842-4101 or 800-850-4726
fax: 202-842-4105
[log in to unmask]
www.parkinsonsaction.org



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now