"60 Minutes" and "Newshour" Take Different Approaches to Covering Gene Patenting Story

    By Donald Zuhn --

On Sunday, the CBS news program "60 Minutes" examined the issue of gene patenting in a segment entitled "Patented Genes."  During the segment, CBS News correspondent Morley Safer interviewed Lisbeth Ceriani and Genae Girard, who were recently diagnosed with breast cancer and who are plaintiffs in the Association of Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office case that was decided a week ago (see "Round One Goes to the ACLU"); Professor Lori Andrews of the Chicago-Kent College of Law in Chicago; Dr. Aubrey Milunsky, Co-Director for the Center for Human Genetics and Professor of Human Genetics, Pediatrics, Pathology, and Obstetrics & Gynecology at the Boston University School of Medicine; Patent Docs author Dr. Kevin Noonan, a partner with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP; and Chris Hansen, Senior National Staff Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and co-counsel for plaintiffs in AMP v. USPTO.  In view of the individuals Mr. Safer chose to interview for the segment, it should really come as no surprise that "60 Minutes" failed to provide viewers with an objective report on the issue.

During the segment, which clocked in at just over thirteen and a half minutes, Mr. Safer devoted about three and a half minutes to Ms. Ceriani's and Ms. Girard's stories, and about a minute and a half each to Prof. Andrews, Dr. Milunsky, Dr. Noonan, and Mr. Hansen.  The position of the plaintiffs and their counsel was not unexpected, but joining them in opposing gene patenting were Prof. Andrews and Dr. Milunsky.  Patent Docs readers may recall that in December of 2006, Prof. Andrews and author Michael Critchton spoke out against gene patents in a Parade.com article (see "Gene Patenting in the News Again").  And during Dr. Milunsky's portion of the "60 Minutes" segment, the Boston University researcher discussed how he had been prevented from performing genetic analysis on a number of genes that had been patented by biotech companies.  If "60 Minutes" returns to the issue (for example, if and when the AMP v. USPTO case is appealed), one hopes that its panel of interviewees will be more balanced and the reporting more fair.

"60 Minutes" could, for example, take a cue from the manner in which the PBS "Newshour" covered the story last Friday in a segment entitled "Can Genes Be Patented?  Ruling Reignites Debate."  Instead of tipping the scales decidedly in favor of the AMP plaintiffs, "Newshour" host Jeffrey Brown discussed the issue of gene patenting with Daniel Ravicher, the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) and co-counsel for plaintiffs in AMP v. USPTO, and Dr. Kenneth Chahine, a visiting professor of law at the University of Utah and former President and Chief Executive Officer at Avigen.  And while the "Newshour" afforded Mr. Ravicher just under three and a half minutes to state his case, Dr. Chahine received almost three minutes to defend gene patenting.  Mr. Brown, who did not reveal his own position on the issue, also did a commendable job of questioning both individuals.

The "60 Minutes" and "Newshour" segments can be viewed below:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Comments

[EG]

Don,

As I've noted earlier, the 60 Minutes segment was biased in extreme. No way that Kevin got a fair opportunity to present the other side of this story. I had to bite my tongue throughout I was so angry at the factual, scientific, and legal distortion of the issues. No doubt about it, there was no fairness or objectivity in this segment. The "Kool-Aid" drinking on the 60 Minutes web site on this segment is unreal.

[Kevin E. Noonan]

I'm told (by 6) that the CBS/60 Minutes website has additional footage.

[EG]

Don,

Let me offer an update on what's going over at the 60 Minutes web site. Not everyone is drinking "Kool-Aid" over there. There are a few who realize and acknowledge how slanted the segment was.

[Nick]

Does anyone know the name of the companies that were sent the cease and desist orders for violating the patent rights?

[max hensley]

Given the past performance of "60 Minutes" is anyone surprised? The general slant has been strongly left wing (i.e., statist and anti-corporate) as long as I can remember, both in terms of the selection of issues and in their presentation.

[patent attorney]

60 minutes obviously did not do their homework. Note that Dr. Jonas Salk is a coinventor of 7 U.S. patents.

[EG]

PA,

Thanks for doing the "homework" 60 Minutes failed to do. Why doesn't this surprise me? This whole 60 Minutes segment is a farce, a travesty and an insult to reporting the facts, science, and law anywhere near accurately or objectively. But try to convince the "Kool-Aid" drinkers of that who are submitting most of the comments on the 60 Minutes web site.

[Wer Kload]

And Dr. Salk was not a patent attorney, so why should we care about his opinion on what should/shouldn't be patentable?

[6]

Yes Kev, but unfortunately those extra little pieces were only about 1.5 minutes each. So, total, you might have gotten 3 minutes yourself. Either way, you didn't get to touch on much of the interesting stuff like they did in this new broadcast. However, even in this broadcast they barely scratch the surface.

[Philip]

The arguments can't be biased if they are against patenting genes. Why? Because genes, as they exist, are not patentable. It would be like saying an argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is biased because it doesn't give enough discussion for the 2 + 2 = 11 crowd.