All,
In response to Gary's request for dialog, I am forwarding to NATIVE-L
a reworked version of my personal reply to Lawrence G. Leichtman's post
from a few days back. I had not looked at the header very carefully
and thought that it was a personal e-mail.
A formal RAFI reply to Dr. Greely's post regarding RAFI's press release
and the HGDP will come shortly. This is not that reply; but rather a
clarification about what precisely has been patented in the PNG case.
RAFI's small staff is spread across three continients and as many time
zones. We work collectively, so it does take us a little bit of time to
compose a reply.
RAFI welcomes, and is enthusiastic about Gary's invitation to discuss these
issues on NATIVE-L. Hopefully, this post will be a good interim source of
information and clarification. We also invite you to spin by our WWW site
(address below) if you are unfamiliar with RAFI and/or would like to see
examples of our work.
Edward Hammond
-------------------
Lawrence Leichtman wrote (regarding the RAFI press release):
> I'm disappointed in this press release in that they mentioned nothing
> about how the sample was obtained. Obviously they did not patent a whole
> human; we don't currently know all of the sequences in any one human much
> less multiple people. This smacks of mere anti-science with no sense of
> what the genome project is about. I'm also opposed to patenting of
> sequences human or animal but the reality is that the federal courts have
> so far backed up the companies and the NIH. A little better information
> from the RAFI would have been useful.
NIH has patented a cell line containing *all* of a Hagahai man's DNA and
chromosomes. The patent is not simply on a virus or a method of using the
virus. In this very real and broad sense, the Hagahai man *has* been
patented. The very basis - and entirety - of this man's physical
identity is now - at least according to the US Government - the property
of NIH.
(A sidenote - Patents are supposed to be on new and novel inventions.
Where is the "invention" in patenting an unmodified human cell line that
is: 1) a product of nature and 2) involves *no* inventive step? The case
law is very young on this subject - human patents are relatively new. But
in any event, should this rather strange Western notion of an invention be
imposed upon the rest of the world? ).
The researchers may very well be primarily interested in the virus that
this man's cells carry; but their interest does not alter the fact that
his physical identity has been patented. To see the implications of this,
it is educational to look at what plant biotech companies are saying about
their patented cells: They claim not only the cell/organism itself; but
also the *progeny* and exclusive right to any organism that contains DNA
from a patented plant cell or gene sequence. The same "utility patent"
has been issued to NIH - this time not "merely" for a plant species; but
for a human.
Indigenous people and other rural populations have genetic characteristics
that are unique, useful, and yes, commercially valuable for scientists and
corporations. Current legal conceptions of informed consent and the oft-
proposed "benefits-sharing agreements" are almost universally woefully
inadequate. Working with, and often at the request of indigenous peoples'
organizations, RAFI has investigated these situations extensively.
Step back and consider the moral implications of patenting human cells -
or life in general. Biocolonialism is real and rapidly growing - if
unchallenged, this sort of patent may only be the prelude to an even
greater commodification of human beings - with indigenous peoples' genes -
stolen, bought, or otherwise obtained - at the forefront of industy's
"intellectual property."
Please drop by our WWW site, here you can find examples of our extensive
research. Our URL is:
http://www.charm.net/~rafi/rafihome.html
Finally, one point of clarification: The press release does not mention
the HGP (Human Genome Project); but rather the Human Genome Diversity
Project (HGDP), headed by Dr. Cavalli-Sforza at Stanford. These are two
separate projects.
Edward Hammond
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments from NativeNet listowner, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
My only question for now is whether there is any such thing as the Human
Genome Project. I had assumed that this reference (which was not in the
posting from Lawrence G. Leichtman, but rather from that of Jeff Keohane
(Tue, 10 Oct 1995 03:40:22 GMT)) was an error, and that Jeff had intended
to refer to the Human Genetics *Diversity* Project. If there is indeed a
separate project with a similar name, I hope that Edward or someone else
can enlighten us on that matter.