Moving on from this blog

I have really enjoyed, benefited from, and hopefully contributed to the discussion of gene patents with both my book and this blog, but I am moving ahead. My new book comes out in the next month or so, and I will be focusing my academic work more broadly on questions pertaining to meta-ethics, normative ethics, and justice. Thank you all for participating in this discussion, and for your interest in this important topic. Here's a draft cover of my new book (click on it to enlarge):

I will be updating about my future research soon. If you're interested, you can find me on Twitter.

New Issue of GeneWatch Magazine

My Article: Naturally Occurring Genes and the Commons by Necessity appears in the latest issue of GeneWatch Magazine, a publication of the Council for Responsible Genetics. There is an impressive line-up of authors for this issue, including Chris Holman, Kevin Noonan, Robert Cook-Deegan, and interviews with Daniel Ravicher and Sandra Park. Most of these arguments are the usual, utilitarian sort on both sides of the issue. I tried to be clear in my article about the deontological, ethical necessity of not patenting unmodified parts of nature, expanding and clarifying, I hope, the arguments I began to make in my book. I have yet to see a decent reply to these deontological arguments beyond the usual utilitarian pleas. The whole issue is worth reading to see the various perspectives and arguments. I am proud to be among the authors, and thankful to the editors.

another amicus brief in which Who Owns You gets cited.

This Amicus brief cites to my book, and discusses briefly my notion of the commons by necessity. Always nice to see someone is paying attention. Many thanks to the authors and amici. There are 12 briefs by amici in support of plaintiff-appellees, and 16 for the appellants. Now we wait for oral argument,which ought to be fun. Wish I could watch.

A nice brief from amici AMA and others, by Lori Andrews and Joshua Sarnoff

Read the brief here in support of plaintiff-appellees. A number of other briefs are out there, including the response brief of ACLU. There are also a number of briefs on the other side of the debate, a good list of which is here.

game over

Just a brief respite from my hiatus to call attention to the recent filing by the US Department of Justice in support of plaintiffs in the AMP v. Myriad suit. It vindicates the arguments I made all along that isolated genes are not inventions, but are parts of nature, and thus not patent-eligible. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the lawsuit, and how the PTO will react. Read the brief: it's succinct, straightforward, and spot-on. I can almost hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the bio-tech industry clear across the Atlantic ocean. Ah, sweet justice.

Hiatus

It's been a while since I updated, and I doubt I will have much time to continue to update this blog in the next few months. We are expecting a child next month, our first, and I just put the wraps on my new book due out next summer (you can pre-order it now, if you want).

Obviously, the fight against gene patents will continue, and as the AMP vs. Myriad appeal works its way up through the courts, I am sure I will chime in with my thoughts. As well, we expect the film to be finished by early 2011 at the latest. I'll keep you all informed.

Thanks for continuing to follow this important, ongoing struggle.

best,
David

Thank You, Brian Leiter

Last summer, I was horrified when I read a scathing review of my book by Chris Holman. I drafted a hasty response on the invitation of James Hughes at the IEET Blog in which I questioned Holman's reading of my book (as he appeared to address only a few pages of it) as well as his objectivity, due to his long-term connections with the biotech industry. To this day, and to my knowledge, he does not deny consulting or otherwise working on behalf of BIO (he is certainly well-known by BIO), although he says he owns no shares in any biotechs using gene patents. My questioning of his motives and neutrality earned me a rebuke from Brian Leiter, who is a law school professor and author of a well-known blog, as well as a J.D./Ph.D. in philosophy like me (although he teaches in a law school, and not a philosophy department). Leiter is known by philosophers mostly for his Gourmet Report which ranks philosophy departments. Although Mr. Leiter had clearly not read my book, he gleefully publicized Holman's review, and publicly rebuked my response (for features he himself has employed), ignoring my pleas for him to pay attention to the substance of my arguments, and Holman's lack of substance in his review (and even Leiter calls for such potential conflicts to be disclosed when he is the subject of criticism).

Despondent that Mr. Leiter's gossipy coverage might tarnish my reputation, I sought the advice of my mentor, a philosopher of long-standing, international reputation. I was advised to relax. Leiter was not that important in philosophical circles (beyond his rankings, which departments do pay attention to), nor his blog that important. "all publicity is good publicity," I was told. And in fact, my mentor was right.

Stephan Kinsella (a patent attorney whom I have since befriended) read about me through Leiter's blog and came to my public defense, bolstering my arguments frequently with his perspective as a patent attorney. And since Holman's review, the majority of reviews of my book, including in Choice, The Guardian, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, The Journal of High Technology Law, Metapsychology Online Reviews, Ethical Perspectives, and elsewhere, have been quite positive. Patent attorneys have tended to be negative, just as they have been critical of the ACLU's claims in the AMP v. Myriad case. But even more importantly than any review, the issue has gained terrific traction this year, the public is becoming aware, and there is the real possibility of changing public policy.

I will never fully understand Mr. Leiter's motivations (although he was on the board of the publication that solicited Holman's review, and did personally peruse and clear the review before publication), nor the delight of some in the scandal-sheet style attacks on my claims (or maybe just on me). My arguments have stood the test, and moreover, the same reasoning is motivating courts and institutions to change the law. This is much more than I hoped for. I am happy to withstand the attacks of academics and patent attorneys, as long as the word gets out, and these arguments get heard. Most people understand well that natural products and laws of nature ought not to be monopolized, as Judge Sweet held, and that the end of gene patents will be a step toward justice. I have had the great good fortune this past year to meet courageous people who have stepped beyond the theory, and sought to change things. I have mentioned them in this blog, including Luigi Palombi, the ACLU and its attorneys, plaintiffs in the AMP v. Myriad case, and others. I am thankful for their commitment to this important issue. Finally, I should thank you, Brian Leiter, for helping to make this a phenomenal year for justice and for helping to connect me with so many wonderful activists, working to change the system.

UPDATE: Indeed, justice has fully prevailed. The Supreme Court adopted the reasoning I advocated and invalidated most gene patents, and a 2d edition of my book is coming out in May 2015, with a chapter devoted to the Myriad case which set the new precedent.http://whoownsyou-drkoepsell.blogspot.ca/