By Kevin E. Noonan --
The Subcommittee on Court, the Internet and Intellectual
Property of the House of Representative's Judiciary Committee has scheduled a
hearing entitled "Stifling or Stimulating - The Role of Gene Patents in
Research and Genetic Testing" for Tuesday, October 30, 2007. While not stating so on the hearing notice,
the testimony to be solicited is no doubt intended to be used in deciding
whether the House should consider Congressman Becerra's wrong-headed ban on
human gene patenting (see "The Continuing Threat to Human Gene Patenting").
Readers of Patent Docs know our position on the bill and
the neo-vitalist provocateurs like Michael Crichton that are behind it. In view of the penchant for this Congress to
dabble in patent "reform" (in the absence of the political power or
courage to address more pressing national concerns), this hearing and this bill
have the potential to seriously injure U.S. biotechnology and pharmaceutical
companies, universities, and their ancillary industries, as well as remove a
significant American advantage in the development of new drugs and disease
diagnosis and treatment methods.
The witness list has not been published on the website as
yet, which suggests that Patent Docs readers can do themselves and the country a
service. Set forth below are the names
and e-mail addresses of the members of the subcommittee. Write them, asking that the witness list be a
fair representation of the differing points of view on the issue. People like Michael Crichton and Lori Andrews
are, frankly, a waste of time - they have great name recognition and may
favor the hearings with extra C-SPAN coverage, but their own views are
well-known and they are unlikely to tell the subcommittee anything its members
don't already know. What the
subcommittee needs is a dose of reality, provided by the people who have the
experience to understand the scope of the problems that exist and the benefits
the country has obtained by being at the forefront of allowing genes to be
patented freely. And quoting some of our
earlier Patent Docs posts may be an quick and painless way to get this point of
view on the members' radar screens.
Set forth below are the names of the members of the subcommittee:
Berman (D-CA, 28th Dist.)
Boucher (D-VA, 9th Dist.)
Cannon
(R-UT, 3rd Dist.)
Chabot
(R-OH, 1st Dist.)
Coble
(R-NC, 6th Dist.)
Cohen (D-TN, 9th Dist.)
Feeney (R-FL, 24th Dist.)
Gallegly
(R-CA, 24th Dist.)
Goodlatte (R-VA, 6th Dist.)
Jackson Lee (D-TX, 18th Dist.)
Johnson (D-GA, 4th Dist.)
Keller (R-FL, 8th Dist.)
Lofgren (D-CA, 16th Dist.)
Pence (R-IN, 6th Dist.)
Schiff (D-CA, 29th Dist.)
Sensenbrenner
(R-WI, 5th Dist.)
Sherman (D-CA, 27th Dist.)
Smith (R-TX, 21st Dist.)
Sutton (D-OH, 13th Dist.)
Watt (D-NC, 12th Dist.)
Weiner (D-NY, 9th Dist.)
If you reside in any of these representatives'
Congressional districts, you can contact your representative directly by e-mail
or telephone; contact info can be obtained here. If
not, comments to the subcommittee can be submitted here.
This may be the best opportunity to influence whether the Becerra bill will be another patent law mistake visited on American innovation by a motivated group with its own interests at heart. Let's make some noise.
For additional information on this topic, please see:
- "The Continuing Threat to Human Gene Patenting," October 16, 2007
- "The Anti-Patent Beat Goes on at The New York Times," July 1, 2007
- "The Future of DNA Patenting," February 20, 2007
- "A DNA Patenting Thought Experiment," February 16, 2007
- "Science Fiction in The New York Times," February 13, 2007
- "The Continuing Value of Biotech Patenting," February 4, 2007
- "Anti-Patent (Sullivan?) Malice by The New York Times," January 29, 2007
- "In Support of Gene Patents," December 7, 2006
- "The 'Anti-Commons' Aren't So Tragic After All," October 27, 2006
- "Gene Patenting in the News Again," December 5, 2006
Thank you for following this very important, albeit insane, legislation so closely.
Posted by: me | October 27, 2007 at 10:06 AM