Patents of Scientific Building Blocks and Processes.

The USPTO has issued various patents that could interfere with the work of basic scientists, social scientists, and engineers. These range from correlation patents, such as the one in the Metabolite case, to patents on certain ways of analyzing data. Patents can chill research if the patent holder forbids other researc hers from using the scientific fact or natural phenomenon (stem cells, DNA) or charges an excessive for access to that knowledge.

One patent claims the use of a computer to derive a solution to any optimization algorithm. Optimization problems have traditionally been expressed in terms of the hypothetical traveling salesman who has to travel his route with the minimum expenditure of time and money. Commentators expressed the opinion that no one would ever attempt to patent such an obivious and important method of problem-solving. But in 2005 a patent was issued for the process of solving the traaveling salesman problem with a computer program that used a standard statistical algorithm outputting a set of optimal data points given certain inputs and constants. Although the inventor includes superficial language referencing a machine, what is actually claimed is the first step to solving any optimization lor linear programming problem. The patent holder can, until the patent expires in 2021, demand a royaltyfromany industrial engineer, facilities planner, telecommunications analyst, or other researcher who uses this algorithm with computer assistance.

The patent entitled "[d]atabase and system for storing, comparing and displaying gebnomic information" encompasses the very manner in which a computer user may access genomic libraries for viewing. Included in the claims is the method of comparing genetic complements of different types of organisms" by means of electronic sequence libraries. Such a broad patent may restrict meaningful access to and analysis of genetic sequence information that would otherwise be freely available to researchers who wish to compare, for example, the genes of mice to the genes of humaans.

Also, doctors profit handsomely when they put their patents on experimental drugs. Pharmaceutical companies pay up to $30,000 per patient. Some doctors actually run ads offering their patients "for sale" to drug companies. The doctors who recruit the most patients into drug studies can make up as much as a million dollars a year. This has led to abuses, where doctors put patients on drugs outside of their area of expertise. Some asthma apecialists, for example, have given patients experimental psychiatric drugs.

One doctor expressed his frustration to the New York Times theat the ethics committee at his hospital refused to $500.00 to each patient for participation in researc h saying that the amount was coercive, yet allowied doctors to be paid $5000 for each patient recruited into the research study.

Before any further legislation is formed, it is time to address the non-implementation of the current legislation we have in place already. Biotechnology is moving forward so fast that the social implecations and ethical concerns are not being taken into consideration and hampering future research of scientific theories. The Supreme Court is upholding decisions made by the lower courts allowing patents on nature itself. As Jonas Salk said, "I could no more patent the polio vaccine than I could the sun!" Without this attitude thousands would be in nursing homes suffering from the effects of this life threatening illness and the side effects that remain once the intial disease has run its course. The patenting of human genetic lines is not a productive way to conduct science.