{BLR 1416} CBW
2
12 Biotechnology Law Report 22 (Number 1, January-February 1993) The effect, Rosenfeld said, would be to "take money away from researchers and give it to individuals and lawyers." In his view, the clear intent of the IPA and the Bayh-Dole Act was to direct the money obtained from licensing into further research at the institution. Is Intent of Law Being Honored? Gold countered that the law as it stands does not necessarily direct the institution's share of the money into research. He pointed out that the CEO of MSKCC was paid more than $2 million in 1988. " [A]nd [Sloan-Kettering] says the inventors are greedy! " Gold said. "What's the matter if a Jonas Salk cures polio and becomes rich? Maybe we could divert substantial numbers of young people into [science and] away from investment banking." After the Court of Appeals decision, Platzer, who has returned to Germany, talked by telephone to the Washington Post. "I feel we were naive and idealistic ..." he said. "... [I]f you look at what other people are making [from royalties], you feel you are not being treated fairly. It's like exploitation." The documents in the case appeared in BLR vol. 11, no. 4, at <BLR 1352>, <BLR 1353>, <BLR 1354>, <BLR 1355>, <BLR 1356>, and <BLR 1357>. Implications for American Competitiveness? The implications of the federal court decision go beyond this case, in the view of some observers. According to Norman J. Katker, who was patent counsel at the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare from 1969 to 1978, Platzer raises questions about the incentives needed to keep high-technology jobs at home, a stated goal of President-elect Bill Clinton. "I look at [the Bayh-Dole Act] as a policy that will create a general atmosphere of cooperation between inventors and organizations," Katker told the Post. In his view, the MSKCC policy of 1% royalties is "ridiculous." The ruling is sure to send ripples into the continuing discussions of conflict of interest rules, with which the federal government has been struggling for some time. # # # TREATY LAW {BLR 1416} CBW. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ADMITS VIOLATIONS OF 1972 TREATY BANNING RESEARCH ON OFFENSIVE BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS -Program Shut Down and Laboratories Opened to International Inspection
Transcript of {BLR 1416} CBW
12 Biotechnology Law Report 22 (Number 1, January-February 1993)
The effect, Rosenfeld said, would be to "take money away from researchers and give it toindividuals and lawyers." In his view, the clear intent of the IPA and the Bayh-Dole Act was todirect the money obtained from licensing into further research at the institution.
Is Intent of Law Being Honored?
Gold countered that the law as it stands does not necessarily direct the institution's share ofthe money into research. He pointed out that the CEO of MSKCC was paid more than $2 millionin 1988. " [A]nd [Sloan-Kettering] says the inventors are greedy! " Gold said. "What's the matterif a Jonas Salk cures polio and becomes rich? Maybe we could divert substantial numbers ofyoung people into [science and] away from investment banking."
After the Court of Appeals decision, Platzer, who has returned to Germany, talked bytelephone to the Washington Post. "I feel we were naive and idealistic ..." he said. "... [I]f youlook at what other people are making [from royalties], you feel you are not being treated fairly.It's like exploitation."
The documents in the case appeared in BLR vol. 11, no. 4, at <BLR 1352>, <BLR1353>, <BLR 1354>, <BLR 1355>, <BLR 1356>, and <BLR 1357>.
Implications for American Competitiveness?The implications of the federal court decision go beyond this case, in the view of some
observers. According to Norman J. Katker, who was patent counsel at the then-Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare from 1969 to 1978, Platzer raises questions about the incentivesneeded to keep high-technology jobs at home, a stated goal of President-elect Bill Clinton. "I lookat [the Bayh-Dole Act] as a policy that will create a general atmosphere of cooperation betweeninventors and organizations," Katker told the Post. In his view, the MSKCC policy of 1%royalties is "ridiculous."
The ruling is sure to send ripples into the continuing discussions of conflict of interestrules, with which the federal government has been struggling for some time.
# # #
TREATY LAW
{BLR 1416} CBW.
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ADMITS VIOLATIONSOF 1972 TREATY BANNING RESEARCH ONOFFENSIVE BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS-Program Shut Down and Laboratories Opened to International Inspection
12 Biotechnology Law Report 23 (Number 1, January-February 1993)
MOSCOW, RUSSIA, 4/11/92- Russian President Boris Yeltsin has issued a decreepromising compliance with the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, which bannedresearch and development of offensive biological warfare agents. He also agreed to allowinternational inspections of laboratories fornerly used for this purpose.
Yeltsin's action followed an admission that research of this nature had been going on inRussia and the former Soviet Union until March 1992 despite the Soviet signature on the treaty. Ithad been widely believed (and furiously denied) for years that the Soviet Union was continuinggerm warfare research. Many scientists thought that an outbreak of anthrax in 1979 that took aheavy toll in Sverdlovsk was the result of an accidental release from a research laboratory. TheSoviet Union denied it.
The continuance of germ warfare research after the disintegration of the Soviet Union cameto light in 1990 when a high-ranking scientist, Vladimir Pasechnik, defected to Britain. Thescientist revealed details of two programs employming 25,000 people involved in R&D ofoffensive biological warfare agents, the goal being to alter known pathogenic bacteria to make themresistant to all antibiotics ("superplague"). The revelations proved an embarrassment for somepersons in the West who had maintained that the Soviet Union was complying with the treaty, butthe evidence of the violations and of plans to arm some terrorists with biological weaponscontinued to surface.
Western governments applauded Yeltsin's action. However, some reservations remain.There are fears that the Russian military will continue the research in defiance of Yeltsin, and it waspointed out that the military has long experience in concealing such work. The fears may be wellfounded: another high-level defector has told U.S. intelligence that offensive germ warfareresearch continued even after the Yeltsin edict.
At the President's Forum at the national meeting of the American Society forMicrobiology(ASM), devoted to the subject "Biological Warfare: An Old Problem and Future Concern," theexpected protests and demonstrations against even defensive biological weapons reasearch did notoccur.
"I believe ... [that] Desert Storm has provided us with a convincing recent scare about ourpossibly weak defenses against biological weapons, and I think the extremists (or idealists) haveperhaps reduced their ... adament stance against biological warfare defense research," ASMPresident Richard L. Crowell commented.
One of the few provocative remarks came from a former researcher at Ft. Derrick, once theU.S. biological warfare research laboratory. The gist of that scientist's comments was that notenough was being done on defensive measures in these days of terrorist acts.
# # #
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
{BLR 1417} Robert C. Gallo-
OSI-
HIV-
AIDS.
