Aaron Fellmeth review in Bioethical Inquiry

Although Fellmeth finds the book insufficiently academic, and bemoans my failure to tie up the loose ends of all of the questions raised by gene patenting, he gives some praise:

"Judging by its provocative yet rhetorical title,
informal tone, and modest number of citations to the
work of others, Who Owns You? is clearly not
addressed to the academic or research communities;
nonetheless, it contains a good deal of helpful
information for the lay public relating to the relevant
(and some irrelevant) biology and biochemistry,
intellectual property law, and ethics of gene patenting.
Koepsell’s gift of conversational writing facilitates
communication of complex ideas to the uninitiated.
On the whole, the book explains much of its subject
matter well."

I did set out to write an accessible general introduction to the topic, and I find that people who have read the book are pleased with its style and tone, as well as interested in a topic they knew little about before reading the book. Moreover, I do admit quite clearly near the end of the book that many of the issues raised, including the link between genes and individuals, remain unanswered and outside the scope of the book.

Finally, Fellmeth's review points to a recurring issue, and that is that lawyers and legal scholars who read my arguments generally miss the point I make in elucidating a new theory of the commons, the "commons by necessity," and this is likely due to the positivist trend in legal scholarship. Steven Poole's review in The Guardian at least notes my "quirky" approach to natural law, which is at the heart to my conclusions about the genome being a "commons by necessity." Overall, I am happy with Fellmeth's review because unlike Holman, he is honest and comprehensive about the whole of the work. He approaches the whole book and not just parts of it, and his differences with my conclusions and approach are honest and not apparently tinged with any conflicting interests. Nonetheless, he takes issue with things that are arguable, and alleges that, for instance, patents on DNA cover something sufficiently "altered" to make them patentable. Here, it is clear we disagree, though like Holman, he calls this my "error."

I'm in touch with Fellmeth, and thanked him for the review. As I said to him, my books have met with reviews that range all over the map, but somehow, over time, the ideas I am working on developing, regarding the nature of ideas, property, the commons, and innovation, have benefited from good, honest, open debate. Judging from the positive response I received last week in NYC, and my interactions with the community of people both affected by gene patents personally, and working to eradicate them, I feel good about the future, and my contributions to changing the law.

Appearance and debate on Gene Patents, GritTV, Oct 26

That was the Week that Was

I have hope. And I have evidence now that hope is worthwhile. This week has been nothing short of amazing. Somehow, everything seems to be happening at once, and now I feel as though the prospects for action to stop gene patenting are good. There is clear momentum, and public support, and a growing group of disparate activists and academics who have somehow begun to convene. In sum, here's what has happened this week:

Monday: I met with Luigi Palombi (see previous posts) and things are in the works now to take this movement international, with real backing and strength. We then attended a screening of Joanna Rudnick's film "In The Family" at Cardozo Law School, and met Dan Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation. I also met Kevin Noonan, who was the lone voice on the other side of the issue, and who is a some-time foil, having critiqued my book (before reading it) on his website -- Patentdocs. He was a gentleman, though, and I hope he'll take part in our film and offer the reasoning behind gene patents.

Tuesday: Taylor Roesch and I interviewed James Watson for our documentary. He delivered some extraordinary sound bites in opposition to gene patenting, and provides unparalleled scientific credibility on the subject given his connection with the human genome's discovery and mapping. Later that evening, we went to another screening of "In The Family" at the Tribeca Cinema, where we were able to film a panel discussion on the legal implications of gene patenting and the ACLU vs. Myriad lawsuit.

Wednesday: I gave my talk at Cardozo Law School, entitled "The Ethical Case Against IP," which we also filmed for the movie. We then went to Harlem where we filmed an excellent interview with Luigi.

Thursday (today): Taylor interviewed me for the documentary. We shot in Central Park, which was brilliant, crisp, and sunny, and the leaves are beginning to turn. It was good to be in the park, even if we were working. I then headed downtown and did a live interview on the Leonard Lopate Show. There's a link to the interview (and all similar press) from my homepage, under "press."

Tomorrow and Monday: I have a call-in interview for WBAI Evening News, and then, perhaps, a moment to breathe. Then Monday, I will debate Gene Quinn on the issue of patents and innovation, and then tape an interview with Laura Flanders of Grit TV.

*UPDATE* here's the GritTV spot, I think it went very nicely.

In sum, the ACLU lawsuit, Luigi's activism in Australia and elsewhere, the recent HHS draft report, and the public's overwhelming support of the movement to eradicate gene patents (when they learn it is happening) give me courage, hope, and strength to continue this work, and seek real and lasting change.

Review in The Guardian, UK

A rather nice review from Steven Poole's "Etcetera non-fiction roundup," Oct 17, 2009, in The Guardian:

"Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes, by David Koepsell (Wiley-Blackwell, £14.99)

Despite the protester-friendly subtitle, this isn't exactly a gosh-wow exposé of the gene-patenting business, but a tersely polemical investigation of the philosophical, scientific and legal issues. Should biotech companies be able to patent genetic sequences taken from sick individuals and monopolise the profit from them? Can you be said to "own" your genes, and to what extent are they part of you as a person? Some companies have acquired patents on genes that we all share, prompting Koepsell to observe: "The only thing the inventor has done is to point out, as if on a map, where that gene lies in nature."

The author insists at moments on a slightly quirky general account of "natural law", but one doesn't need to buy that to appreciate his fruitful detours into discussions of copyright history or "open source". He finally returns to the analogy with land, arguing that ought to be our shared "commons", and that the patent-rush constitutes a new enclosure."

NYC Media and talks

I'll be in NYC from Oct 18-26, and have a number of media appearances and talks scheduled. I am excited too to be getting together with Luigi Palombi, of Australia, the author of Gene Cartels which makes the legal case against gene patenting and is the most comprehensive work on the legal aspects of the subject I have read. Finally, Taylor Roesch and I will do some filming for the documentary we are producing about the issue. It will be a busy and exciting week!

In addition to the media listed below, I will be speaking at Cardozo Law School on Oct 21, at noon, room 205 on "The Ethical Case Against IP" and then debating my friend Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com on the the issue "Patents: Competing views of Innovation" at noon on Oct 26 also at Cardozo. Both events will be open to the public.


Thursday October 22 – IN-STUDIO at WNYC NEW YORK PUBLIC RADIO
“Leonard Lopate”
Interview Time: 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM LIVE
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/


Friday October 23 – BY PHONE –WBAI-FM
“WBAI Evening News with Andrea Sears”
http://www.wbai.org/


Monday October 26 –IN STUDIO at Grit TV (Free Speech TV)
“Grit TV with Laura Flanders”
Nationally Syndicated TV / Radio
Interview time: 1:30 PM – 2:00 PM
http://www.lauraflanders.com/

Great report from US-DHHS

So, it seems that the US Dept. of Health and Human Services will recommend de-fanging almost completely gene patents as they are presently granted in the US. Essentially, they have reached the same conclusions that I reach in my book regarding the nature and utility of gene patents and effects in creating patent thickets. Because the report is not available yet, I cannot say whether they address any of the ethical issues involved. Here's part of the conclusion reported at IPWatchdog, where my friend Gene Quinn is naturally quite alarmed by what I consider to be a fantastic step forward:

"For the most part, patents covering genetic tests and related licensing practices do not appear to be causing wide or lasting barriers to patient access. However, the case studies and public comments documented several situations in which patient access to genetic tests has been impeded for segments of the population—especially indigent patients—when these tests are offered by an exclusive provider or a limited number of providers, a practice directly enabled by current patenting and licensing practices."

I look forward to reading the final report and hoping that Congress acts as recommended.

Patents: tools of state socialism

the following reasoning is met with deafening silence at IP Watchdog, where clueless patent attorneys accuse me of socialism, communism, etc...

How are patents a free market device? Shouldn’t capitalism embrace free markets? My love for free markets is what drives me to hate patents, since they skew markets, are a state-granted privilege accorded for no better reason than beating someone else to filing something with bureaucrats, and inhibit free, unfettered competition, which is what capitalism ought to encourage rather than hinder.

Patents are more socialist than capitalist. They get the state into the business of marketplaces, of determining what technologies ought to succeed or fail, of boosting patented tech over non-patented tech, rather than encouraging the market to select for the best products and drive pricing. It’s a lot closer to five-year plans than what I envision, which is a market without any state involvement at all.