Using H5N1 to drive other agendas

Up front I’m going to admit that I am more than a bit peeved.  In fact, I didn’t post last night because I had that metaphorical steam coming out of my ears and when I have that mental disposition I tend to not be so “nice and polite” or use “socially acceptable” language.  

Flublogia’s newest blogger, Mr. Hammond of Immunocompetant, contributed an editorial to TWN and it has made its obligatory rounds to the rest of Flublogia. 

WHO-LINKED CENTRE LAYS PATENT CLAIM ON BIRD FLU VIRUS

Published in SUNS #6539 dated 15 August 2008

Bogota, 14 Aug (Edward Hammond*) — In a development that is likely to raise more pressing questions about reform of the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance Network (GISN), an international patent application has surfaced in which the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) and US National Institutes of Health claim ownership of Indonesian influenza genes.

A recent patent search has revealed that the CDC, which is a WHO collaborating centre, is applying for a patent for a new vaccine against influenza, particularly for bird flu (H5N1). The vaccine incorporates genes from a H5N1 strain isolated from an Indonesian human victim of bird flu in 2005.    

The actual patent information:

The US government nor the US CDC is not patenting the Indonesian strain of H5N1.  They are, along with the researchers, filing for a patent on a DNA vaccine.  That DNA vaccine incorporates a portion of the HA gene from an Indonesian human infection.  And to be as plain as I can manage: It is not the portion of the gene being patented, it is the cytomegalovirus, Human T-lymphotropic virus, and A/Indonesia/05/05 H5N1 HA-MutA genetically manipulated construct that is being patented.

It is exactly the same principle as the Tamiflu most are familiar with.  Tamiflu is derived, via a complicated process, from Star Anise.  When Gilead patented what came to be known as Tamiflu it did not patent Star Anise, a major component, it patented the chemical composition, or recipe if you will, of oseltamivir phosphate.

I support my government’s granting scientific research, well, at least if its to benefit people such as cancer, AIDS, or Influenza research, with many other research areas that also fall into the category [as I define it].  I also support the fact that as financial sponsors of research the US Government [via the institutes involved] has a say in how the technology and findings are utilized.  In the case of technology transfers it is the government that is ensuring developing nations have access, something that probably wouldn’t happen with regularity if left entirely within the control of private researchers or commercial enterprises.

Mr. Hammond, as a professed “independent researcher and an expert on patents and biological resources” , is either not such an “expert” or he deliberately chose an inflammatory and misleading title for his essay and knowingly made statements contained within that are out and out false.

For anyone interested in what the US government does with its patent interest I will offer this snippet:

US Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health Office of Technology Transfer [link]

As part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mission to support biomedical research and reduce the burden of illness worldwide, the NIH Roadmap Initiative outlines the need to position the NIH to address the evolving public health challenges of the 21st Century and to enhance public-private partnerships. To support this mission, the NIH Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) is working to address global health challenges by facilitating the transfer of technologies to people around the world.

With many years of intellectual property management experience, OTT is ideally positioned to move technologies from the public sector to private industry in the U.S. and abroad. Indeed, out of the thousands of licenses OTT has executed to date, over 300 have been licensed to foreign companies. Approximately 200 products utilizing NIH technologies have been commercially marketed through various domestic and international public-private partnerships.

Through a comprehensive analysis of its portfolio and an on-going dialogue with regional, international, and private institutions to delineate the needs and capabilities of emerging economies, OTT has identified a niche of relevant technology transfer opportunities for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, pertussis, malaria, dengue, childhood diarrhea (rotavirus), meningitis, typhoid fever, cancer, and diabetes. OTT has already transferred such technologies or is currently negotiating license agreements with public and private institutions in India, Mexico, Brazil, China, Korea, Egypt, Argentina, and South Africa.

Continues….

Mr. Hammond may be new to Flublogia but an early lesson in the “self-correcting” nature of the Cyber Flu Community may prove to be of benefit.  Looking past rudeness and ill-mannered behavior is one thing, looking past deliberately misleading and inflammatory statements is an entirely different matter and one I do not suffer in silence.  Not liking genetic engineering is something shared by many people, there are real issues to the practice and science, one need not bend reality and inflame readers to make legitimate points, if legitimate points exist.  One only need stoop to that practice if there is nothing but hot air and vitriol supporting the claims and accusations. 

SZ