Los Angeles Times Editorial of April 27 Missing the Boat on Stem Cell Issues

In an April 27 editorial titled "Let the science begin," theconflicting aims."The Los Angeles Times recognizes
Los Angeles Times jumps from the Alameda Countythat treatments are not around the corner: Even if
Superior Court decision upholding the constitutionality ofresearch started tomorrow, any stem cell treatments
Proposition 71 to then discuss and oppose Senate Billare years away, which makes the legal delay that
401 of Deborah Ortiz on the basis that CIRM should bemuch more frustrating. A problem is that the Times
given the chance to work out its rules and begin itshas not connected the dots to appreciate how this
important research before the Legislature startsdelay impacts the concept of "a fair share of profits
micromanaging every aspect of its work. The overallmade from medical discoveries."The Los Angeles
gist of the editorial, consistent with the title, is "we'veTimes has not recognized that California researchers,
had enough of this legal stuff; let's get going on themerely to get started in research, may have to infringe
science." The problem with this is that the legal stuff isupon the patent rights of others. In the worse of all
going to impact the science, whether or not the Lospossible hypothetical worlds, wherein such activity is
Angeles thinks that to be a just result.Somewhere innot excused by a research exemption, such patent
the middle of the editorial is a statement that bearsholders might get an injunction against researchers in
scrutiny:It may have taken more protest and rancorCalifornia. This is a real show-stopper. The potential
than it should have to get the governing committee toimpact of such a measure was seen in the RIM case
make its dealings transparent, ensure that any futureconcerning BlackBerries and is being investigated in the
treatments are accessible to the state's poor andeBay case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.To be
provide the public with a fair share of profits madehelpful to Proposition 71, the Los Angeles Times needs
from medical discoveries. But in recent months, theto get a fuller grasp of "where" CIRM currently is and
agency has addressed these concerns. It also has"what issues" it needs to resolve, especially in the
adopted top-notch standards for research ethics andintellectual property area.The present ezine article is
the protection of potential egg donors.One would thinkrelated to Ebert, Lawrence. (2006, April 12). Los
that the issue of patent royalties arising from patentsAngeles Times Article Way Off Base on Stem Cell
generated through Proposition 71 was a done deal. ItIssues. EzineArticles. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from B.
isn't. Furthermore, the issue of having to pay patentEbert is a registered patent attorney located in central
royalties to third parties, such as Wisconsin's WARF, inNew Jersey. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford, a J.D.
order to conduct stem cell research at all has not beenfrom the University of Chicago, maintains a blog at
addressed.The basic objectives of Proposition 71 areIPBiz.blogspot.com, and is the author of LESSONS TO
not even clear. In the last month, Ed Penhoet chair ofBE LEARNED FROM THE HWANG MATTER:
the IP Task Force of CIRM, has said"What are weANALYZING INNOVATION THE RIGHT WAY,
really attempting to do? Are we trying to drivepublished in the Journal of the Patent & Trademark
therapies as rapidly as possible? Are we trying toOffice Society [88 JPTOS 239 (March 2006)], which
stimulate business in California? Do we want to growarticle includes a discussion of Hwang's claim to patient
small companies? There (is) a whole set of potentiallyspecific stem cells. Ezine draft submitted April 28, 2006.