Working With Stem Cells? Pay Up

What the Wisconsin patent stranglehold means for researchers.


Can someone own the cells that make up what is important about a human embryo?

In August 2001, I told a US Senate subcommittee that as much as half of stem cell revenue would likely end up going to patent holders because of absurd patents on the human embryo. No one seemed to care. The debate over embryonic stem cells then was whether it was ethical to do research on them.

That is mostly still true, but it won't be for much longer. With $3 billion for stem cell research coming down the chute in California, researchers are terrified. They fear that their own innovations will be credited inappropriately or result in unfair profits, because they will have to license the basic stuff of life from the University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). Wisconsin is the home of James Thomson, the researcher who successfully identified and cultured human embryonic pluripotent stem cells, roughly simultaneous to a similar experiment by John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins. All of that has led to complaints from two groups - the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and the Public Patent Foundation - that have now forced the US Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider the patents.

The taxpayers of California are none too pleased either. The $3 billion, they are beginning to gripe, was to go to stem cell research, and they're furious that someone who filed a patent on looking at the human embryo could collect royalties every time an embryonic stem cell is made, or used in a discovery, regardless of whether that cell came from Wisconsin.

So can someone own the cells that make up what is important about a human embryo? And if so, do we have to pay them every time we make our own embryonic cells, every time we make a medicine or other innovation from embryonic cells, and even when we use the cells to teach?

At least at the blastocyst stage, the answer is essentially yes. The broadest claim made by Thomson in US Patent No. 6200806 is to "a purified preparation of pluripotent human embryonic stem cells which (i) will proliferate in an in vitro culture for over one year, (ii) maintains a karyotype in which the chromosomes are euploid and not altered through prolonged culture, (iii) maintains the potential to differentiate to derivatives of endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm tissues throughout the culture, and (iv) is inhibited from differentiation when cultured on a fibroblast feeder layer." WARF, in this and two other patents, in essence owns virtually all imaginable characteristics of human embryonic stem cells.

Wisconsin also controls five cell lines, which the state's former governor, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thomson, just happened to authorize under the Bush "ethical cells" policy of 2001 as among those cell lines in which "the evil had already been done," so the cells were doubly blessed.

Basically, if it looks like an embryonic cell, you'd better pay up. And if you try to make something out of your own embryo - yes, the one you made with your own body, from your own body - well, hope you have good lawyers.

In one among many of its attempts to avoid what could and should be a reversal of these patents stemming from the decision to review them, Wisconsin's Governor Jim Doyle has announced that companies who fund work at universities and nonprofits in that state will not have to pay any licensing fees. Previous attempts to ameliorate the problem have been more aggressive: offering to provide the cell lines at lower prices or to cross-license in a friendly way, for example. It wasn't enough for Californians, and now it appears it won't be enough to stop right-thinking people everywhere from filing suit, on moral grounds if nothing else.

The protection of patents is supposed to extend to "things under the sun made by man." There has yet to be a serious challenge to the absurdity of patents on disease genes, and the even more absurd notion that the ability to find, to discover, constitutive parts of an embryo means that you own them.

Well, that's one patent we can throw over the side of the WARF.

Glenn McGee is the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics.



Advertisement


 

Rate this article

Rating: 1.67/5 (3 votes )





Stem Cells [patents]
by stinky will

[Comment posted 2006-11-30 20:31:49]
The inovation of the patent was to protect the owner / originator of a discovery/invention..etc from the loss of ᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪ/$$$$$$$ due to a person/s not being the owner / originator of a discovery/invention claiming to be same and gaining ᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪᅡᆪ/$$$$$ due to theft of....from other.

This is a basic peice of history and demonstrated by examples ie ball point pen etc where the full due was not enjoyed by creator due to theft of idea by another.
Broadly speaking the concept has changed little and in the fields of science/medicine it is probably these that demonstrate the issue the best.
For myself I happen to beleive that past costs wages, money has no place in the search of ways to eradicate disease and improve human life.

The facts remain that for all the [medicines/pills/potions that have been classed as wonderfull inovative bla bla bla, barring a few essential early discoveries, the quality of life while in terms of longevity may be greatly improved,all this means is a person has more years on this earth to consume drugs/ products for conditions of the body/mind that the human body and the tools contained within it are more than capable of dealing with were they given the chance.



Re: Working With Stem Cells? Pay Up
by Ben Prickril

[Comment posted 2006-11-10 12:34:38]
The title of this article is alluring but misleading. The controversy surrounding the WARF patents is similar to that of other biomedical patents claiming seemingly huge pieces of the intellectual property (IP) landscape. These so-called umbrella patents (in this case claiming hES cell lines and methods of making) look to be unfair because they appear to inhibit novel future ideas falling within their broad claims, and because large licensing fees may be required to use the patented IP. These difficulties are dealt with by cross-licensing agreements wherein the owners of the broader and narrower patents share the rights to use each others invention, by simply negotiating a license, or by innovating around the claims of the umbrella patent.

Indeed the WARF patents are a great success because they have both rewarded the patent holders for their innovation, and spurred future innovation by encouraging newer and better means of producing and using hES cells. This is exactly what patents are designed to do.



Whining about stem cell patents
by Jon Coffman, Ph.D.

[Comment posted 2006-11-09 14:47:34]
The novelty of claim one in Thompson's (WARF) patent is not in parts (i) through (iii), which indicate the claims utility (and are quite broad), but in the final clause: "is inhibited from differentiation when cultured on a fibroblast feeder layer." Is it not possible to inhibit from differentiation using other techniques than a fibroblast feeder layer (see US Patent 6,800,480)? If so, claim 1 does not apply. This approach has been addressed not only because of Thompson's '806 patent, but because of the presence of impurities (such as viruses) in the feeder cells. If the non-feeder cell techniques do not work and using a fibroblast feeder layer is truely novel, then the patent is probably worth it's reputed $400,000 license.
Further, as you briefly allude to in your essay, the patent covers cells isolated from the blastocyst stage; cells derived either prior to or after the blastocyst stage may not be covered.
An excellent summary of the patent is discussed in Nature Biotechnology 24, 411 - 413 (2006) "The paths around stem cell intellectual property" by Kenneth S Taymor, Christopher Thomas Scott & Henry T Greely. This article discusses not only the patent, but also possible ways around the patent.

I feel that you may be doing your readers a disservice by saying that this patent is unnecessarily broad without discussing methods around the patent already in existence or the benefits of the patents. Your article instead sounded more like whining than a reasoned and balanced discussion of the facts. Patents lead to more scientific diversity; this patent may be one of those leading to more diversity, and more discoveries. The Taymor et. al article in Nature Biotechnology is much more balanced and insightful.






Front Cover

Register for FREE Online Access

  • »Current issue
  • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
  • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

Register »

Subscribe to the Magazine

  • »Monthly print issues
  • »Unlimited online access
  • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

Subscribe »

Library Subscriptions
Recommend to a Librarian

Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
© 1986-2012 The Scientist