Follow-on: CDC patent controversy

This blog carries this quote prominently at the top:

If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my Hypothesis, I promise him either to recant my mistake, upon fair conviction; or to answer his difficulties. Two Treaties on Government John Locke

There is a reason for its prominent position, I am a person who has a few opinions and I am generally not shy in expressing them.  However, this journey that I am on finds me learning as I go, or minimally, at least making an attempt to learn.  Sometimes I get things wrong and I would rather someone correct my error than to continue to operate under a misapprehension.  Over these three years I’ve learned a lot from readers and some of my Fellow Flubies who have taken the time to help me along, correcting when I err or nudging when I am not quite “on target”, and always I am grateful for it.

Today finds me with the opportunity to publicly correct an error I made very publicly.  Serendipitously, I also received these comments on “Swallowing a spoon-fed lie”  from Mr. Hammond shortly before I got home from my “day job”:

From the international patent application:

Applicants: THE GOVERMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [US/US]; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Biford Hwy (K79), Atlanta, Georgia 30333 (US) (All Except US).

(NIH too… besides, they are both HHS.)

Need I say more. Sorry, SZ, you might know about flu; but you don’t know about patents.

and…

Also, SZ, you need to study up on the distinctions between sovereignty and ownership.

I suggest that you study this issue more carefully before you continue to post. You seem to misunderstand a number of basic concepts about patents, international law, and US government organization (or lack thereof).

Mr. Hammond is correct, I don’t know much about patents, but I have a reasonable working conceptual framework, so I’m comfortable with both what I know and what I don’t know.  I am not the one presenting myself as a patent and biologicals expert, rather, just an opinionated semi-know-it-all.

You see, I made a mistake when I interpreted the patent to include “biologicals” as part of the patent, or at least that is what I was informed today (and I have absolutely no reason to believe I was either lied to or received less than truthful information).  But let me restate that I’m a neophyte, self-admitted and unashamed, when it comes to patents so it would be a simple matter to mislead me if one where motivated to do so, but I’ll come back to that, but first let me tell you about a phone call I received today.

I was slaving away [really] at my “day job” when my cell phone rang, but I just let it drop to voice mail because I didn’t recognize the number and I didn’t want to lose the momentum on the task at hand.  Retrieving the message a bit later I learned that someone by the name of Shaw from the CDC had called as a follow on to my inquiry last week.  Thinking it was an intern with the public relations office wishing to close some sort of public relations “file” I waited a few more minutes until I felt reasonably sure that Shaw would be out to lunch so I could leave him a voice mail in turn saying that my inquiry had been handled to my satisfaction and thank you [blah - blah - blah] because I really was too busy and distracted to deal with “required governmental niceties” for the “inquiring public”, which in this case would be me.

To my momentary annoyance a Mr. Michael Shaw answered the phone.  Annoyance quickly turned to embarrassed “Oh Crap” when I asked him if he was very familiar with the “patent controversy” and with the H5N1 vaccine in general, still assuming I was speaking to someone from the public relations department, and the rather exasperated gentleman informed me that he was familiar with both because he was the associate director for laboratory science – influenza division.

I was embarrassed that Mr. Shaw had to take time out of his day, a day that was probably even busier than my own, and follow up on what had been a simple question to the media relations department.  Well, live and learn, as they say, and I learned that the CDC takes their very serious “business” very seriously.  Serious enough to even answer stupid questions fired off in a moment of reactionary anger.  And, Mr. Shaw, should you happen to ever read this: I do apologize that you had to take time out to follow up on this [ridiculous] issue that should not even be an issue.

So, anyway, Mr. Shaw was kind enough to briefly explain what the patent was so that I, as a neophyte, would understand.  In a nutshell, and paraphrasing:

It’s a patent for a vaccine technique with no biological agents included in the patenting process [or however that would be stated].  The technique being a two-shot strategy “prime/prime-boost” with all that “virus – protein – plasmid stuff” that at this point in time is irrelevant.  The “relevant issue” is whether or not the CDC and/or the NIH patented any biologicals.  

The influenza virus was used because A) it was relevant to current scientific endeavors, B) They have to use something, and C) Test animals are easily and meaningfully [translatable to human beings] utilized with the influenza virus.  The CDC was involved because H5N1 was included in the testing [a currently relevant disease] and H5N1 can only be worked on in labs meeting a certain BSL level.  So, I was in error when I stated that it a genetic “construct” was in any way or manner included in the patent.

Mr. Shaw also stated that the US Centers for Disease Control [CDC] is fundamentally opposed to the patenting of any biologicals.  The CDC’s interests lie in public health and it is in the best interest of public health to have open access, and patenting biologicals is directly counter to the open access that is needed. This makes sense if given honest consideration.

I have belabored this issue for a few very simple, but I feel very important, reasons.  First, although I would not recommend anyone just “pick up the phone” and ask the CDC a stupid question [like someone we all know did] if there is genuine concern or a genuine question this incident has concretely demonstrated that those questions and concerns will be openly addressed.  Now, I suppose it would be easy to think that I was lied to, and nothing I could say would dissuade that opinion, but I have no sense of anything other than an honest and forthright attempt to address my question.  Besides, silence would have better served than any lie deliberately delivered… after all, most folk believe Mr. Hammond, and I am nothing more than a self-admitted neophyte so what the hell do I know.  In other words… who would believe a denial coming from someone such as myself?  Save a lie, with all of the included career enders and public discredit that come with one, for someone who would be able to meaningfully counter Mr. Hammond’s claims.

I would even hazard the guess that Mr. Hammond’s concerns and questions would be answered if he would just “pick up the phone”, though I will admit that I assume Mr. Hammond isn’t very interested in the truth of this matter.  

Which reminds me, Mr. Hammond there is a book that I would like to recommend to you: Mistakes were made (but not by me): why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts Tavris and Aronson.

I don’t expect I have changed anyone’s mind on this issue.  To change someone’s mind is an extremely difficult task and I have neither the time nor the energy to put into it.  I did, however, feel it was important to set right my error and to give “voice” to the CDC’s response.  And with this posting I will be done with this issue, because as I say in my less than patient moments, anything more would only be mental masturbation.

SZ