Scientists accused of stealing AIDS orphans' blood

THE OBSERVER , LONDON
Monday, May 31, 2004,Page 7

Scientists from Oxford University "stole the blood" of African orphans and brought it back to the UK to carry out "unlawful" research into AIDS.

This sensational claim is made by a leading Kenyan scientist whose lawyers will begin legal action this week against Oxford and one of its top researchers, Dr Sarah Rowland-Jones. He alleges her team stole blood he collected from HIV-infected orphans and used his data to publish their own research.

The row centers on an orphanage on the outskirts of the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, which some scientists hope holds the key to a future cure for AIDS.

At the Nyumbani children's home, HIV-infected children rescued from the city's slums have survived for more than 10 years without medication. Their natural immunity has intrigued scientists around the world. Researchers believe the orphans' blood offers vital genetic clues that could lead to the holy grail of AIDS research: an effective vaccine.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/05/31/2003157691

Thank you for renewing my cynicism.

seems like if they wanted it for legit research they coulda' gotten it with permission.

I worked in medical research, and believe me, the competition to publish anything new is brutal! There are times when resources are shared freely, but when someone has a project they expect (or wish) to hit big on, everything associated with it is protected like treasure.

got bumped off for a moment, thanks for reply

by now. There's got to be a better way to fund our scientists.

How could it not be the best way?

/sarcasm

Click here for fair and balanced yet stunning, insulting, shocking, funny buttons, magnets and stickers

I don't know how accurate was as far as the specific situation, but I can tell you that I am aware of other projects that have included the same sort of underhanded moves. My boss was not one of them. He was very honest, but I heard the talk between researchers about others.

I hate to say it, but there may have been a wee bit of liberal bias in the movie version. Randy Shilts spared no one in the book version.

Copy their research and get new samples over to Cuba. Cuba is recognized in some quarters as the "open source" developer of the medical world.

It would drive the Pharms ballistic.

http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/ June 3-9th San Francisco
is attempting to address this type of issue, which should be of great concern to us all.

Patenting genes
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

snip

What are some of the potential arguments against gene patenting?

Patents of partial and uncharacterized cDNA sequences will reward those who make routine discoveries but penalize those who determine biological function or application (inappropriate reward given to the easiest step in the process).

Patents could impede the development of diagnostics and therapeutics by third parties because of the costs associated with using patented research data.

Patent stacking (allowing a single genomic sequence to be patented in several ways such as an EST, a gene, and a SNP) may discourage product development because of high royalty costs owed to all patent owners of that sequence; these are costs that will likely be passed on to the consumer.

Because patent applications remain secret until granted, companies may work on developing a product only to find that new patents have been granted along the way, with unexpected licensing costs and possible infringement penalties.

Costs increase not only for paying for patent licensing but also for determining what patents apply and who has rights to downstream products.

Patent holders are being allowed to patent a part of nature --a basic constituent of life; this allows one organism to own all or part of another organism.

Private biotechs who own certain patents can monopolize certain gene test markets.

Patent filings are replacing journal articles as places for public disclosure --reducing the body of knowledge in the literature.


How many of you realize that your blood, your bone marrow and all umbilical and placental cord blood is now under patent?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040303/new012_1.html

snip

ANN ARBOR, Mich., March 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Aastrom Biosciences, Inc. (NasdaqSC: ASTM) announced today that it has received patent number 6,667,034 B2 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The patent covers a method of bone marrow transplantation, often referred to as stem cell transplants, using cells produced with Aastrom's proprietary single-pass perfusion technology that enables the growth of normal human cells outside the body.

snip

Bone marrow has stem and progenitor cells that can lead to the regeneration of many tissues in the human body, including blood, immune system and solid tissues such as bone, cartilage and vasculature (veins and arteries). Aastrom's new patent covers the medical use of bone marrow cell products cultured outside the body under specific conditions, and comprises a mass of stromal cells, often called mesenchymal cells. Stromal cells generate biological signals that can support the growth of stem cells, and certain types of stromal cells can also generate certain solid tissues. Additionally, this patent covers cells produced from blood or umbilical and placental cord blood.