Judy,

I believe the man you wrote about sued in US courts in regard to the
patenting of his cells is John Moore.  In 1976 he was diagnosed with
hairy-cell leukemia.  He went to a physician at UCLA medical center and had
his spleen removed (at that time the only known procedure to manage the
cancer).  His doctor was doing research, found that Moore's cells had unique
qualities and he thus patented the cell line. It became the Mo cell line.
Moore became suspicious about the number of times he had to return to the
doctor after his surgery (and about the second consent form he was asked to
sign) and eventually hired a lawyer to find out what was going on.  The
lawyer found out about the patenting and that Moore's doctor had stock in a
company called Genetics, Inc (a small biotech firm which was assigned the
patent). Eventually Sandoz, a huge pharmaceutical company became involved and
it has been determined that this particular cell line is worth approximatedly
$3 billion because of its antibacterial and cancer-fighting qualities.  Moore
went to court but lost.  The court determined that Moore had no rights to
this "invention."  Moore was interviewed by a law student at one web site.
He stated his surprise that in the US someone else can claim ownership of
your body parts or cells and has no obligation to tell you about this claim.

This scenario has already happened in regard to the patenting of human milk
components.   The only difference is that the women who have donated their
milk are not aware that their milk was used in patents and have been used in
the commercialisation of various products.  The lactoferrin industry (for
example  Agennix with its 50 or so patents) is based on research of human
milk.  Agennix is part of the biotech industry associated with Baylor College
of Medicine (President of Baylor is also scientific advisor to Agennix).
Lactoferrin is used in a variety of products that are in the market place. (I
have already posted on the various products from toothpaste to eyedrops to
nutritional products).

What I find disturbing is the remarkable silence and/or lack of interest from
the breastfeeding community in regard to the patenting of human milk
components.   I understand that it is human nature to discount information
that is contrary to what we believe to be true.  It is difficult to believe
that human milk has an enormous worth beyond nutrition for infants/children.
It counters the reality that the infant formula industry has built in the
USA.  It boggles the mind that what we, women can produce for our babies, may
be worth billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry.  Will the
pharmaceutical industry (which in essence is the infant formula industry)
tell anyone this?  Will human milk research continue to benefit the drug and
infant formula industry?  Years ago I read a book called Future Shock in
which the author suggested that technological change would be so rapid that
we, humans would have a difficult time understanding or comprehending those
changes.  I believe that this patenting is future shock.  There are enormous
ethical challenges in regard to this kind of patenting, this so-called
"inventing." Silence on this issue can only benefit the drug and infant
formula industry.   Thank you Judy for responding to my post on this subject.
Valerie W. McClain, IBCLC





             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html