Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

A response of sorts to Don C. Reed about covering both sides of CIRM

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

Don C. Reed made a comment to yesterday's IPBiz post on the "state of the union" speech of George Bush. The comment included:

But I must object strongly to your characterization of David Jensen's California Stem Cell Report as "Fantasyland".

(...)

But Jensen is a reporter, who makes a genuine and ongoing effort to present both sides accurately.

IPBiz had written on Jan. 29:

of the state of the union speech the [californiastemcellreport] noted:

The California stem cell agency is accusing President Bush of distorting facts and performing a disservice to millions of Americans who suffer from chronic diseases and injuries.

The agency said Bush intends to "further limit" research into human embryonic stem cells.

The CIRM statement is contained in a press release on its web site that concerned Bush's speech Tuesday night. Interestingly, the CIRM statement is not attributed to either Bob Klein, chairman of the agency, or its new president, Australian stem cell researcher Alan Trounson. In the past, statements such as this have been linked to either the president or chairman.

There is a post on stemcellbattles (by Mr. Reed) including the text:

Here is a news-release from CIRM (the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine)

Important: the CIRM has of course absolutely no connection with my politics. This is a press release, from the CIRM?s website, their response to the President?s remarks.

For release: IMMEDIATE Contact: Ellen Rose
415-396-9117


CIRM DISAGREES WITH PRESIDENT BUSH?S MISLEADING POSITION
ON STEM CELL RESEARCH


SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., January 28, 2008 ?

The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) issued the following statement in response to President Bush?s State of the Union address:

Tonight, in his State of the Union address, President Bush distorted the scientific facts on stem cell research and did a disservice to the millions of patients suffering from chronic disease and injury for whom stem cell research holds great promise for future therapies and cures.

Stemcellbattles notes: Don C. Reed is co-chair of Californians for Cures, and writes for their web blog, www.stemcellbattles.com. Reed was citizen-sponsor for California?s Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999, named after his paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for California?s Senator Deborah Ortiz?s three stem cell regulatory laws, served as an executive board member for Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act, and is director of policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The retired schoolteacher is the author of five books and thirty magazine articles, and has received the National Press Award.

****

Of the point about --disservice to the millions of patients suffering from chronic disease and injury for whom stem cell research holds great promise for future therapies and cures--, one might look to a January 19 IPBiz post quoting Dr. Yamanaka on his iPS work:

Last week, Yamanaka told reporters in Tokyo that aspects of the iPS discovery - though not stem cell therapy, which might be a decade away from clinical application, even if the research continues going well - have reached another breakthrough point.

IPBiz notes that iPS is further along in development than the human SCNT work of the Hwang-type that CIRM was trying to fund, for example, in its grant (now withdrawn) to the Cha entity. One asks: great promise for "when" in the future? Sooner than Jules Verne's Nautilus, but likely not within 10 years? One suspects that the rejection by the voters of the state of New Jersey of the stem cell bond issue last November was caused in part by these concerns. There are probably also concerns about money going to scientific empire building rather than to the pursuit therapeutic cures. How much disservice has been done as to promises that might be a long time in realization?

****

IPBiz sadly must take issue with Reed's --a genuine and ongoing effort to present both sides accurately--. Californiastemcellreport has not presented both sides of the intellectual property issues, including those pertaining to the WARF / Thomson patents. There have been a number of IPBiz posts, including but not limited to:

What californiastemcellreport isn't talking about

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/01/note-to-californiastemcellreport.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/06/response-to-californiastemcellreport-on.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/08/sacramento-bee-article-on-act-stem.html [Of this 2006 post, note the supposed
"breakthrough" went nowhere AND was irrelevant to weakening WARF's (supposed) lock on research]

When one has a blog directed to an agency, one runs the risk of the phenomenon of "regulatory capture." The blog's interests and the agency's interests become aligned, although certainly NOT fully aligned.

Full post as published by IPBiz on January 30, 2008 (boomark / email).