Patent or perish?

LifeNews discusses ConsumerWatchDog's appeal of its loss at the USPTO:

Some say the battle over embryonic stem cell research funding is the main source of contention in the stem cell research debate. However, for scientists, it's about patents.

The consumer groups argue the patenting has driven some scientists overseas because they can't profit from any follow-up work. That say the patents have done more to damage stem cell research in the United States than any lack of state or federal government funding.

Bioethics observer Wesley J. Smith has said the fight over money illustrates a phenomenon that is too little understood.

"Science has become a commercial enterprise--even in the ivory covered walls of the university. The days of 'publish or perish' are over. The current mantra is patent or perish," he explained.

IPBiz notes that filing patent applications does not exclude submitting journal articles. The days of "publish or perish" are not over, and have not been replaced by "patent or perish."

There were some errors in the LifeNews post, corrections for which can be found.

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/07/consumer-watchdog-gets-it-wrong-again.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/bias-of-eli-kintisch-shows-in-small-win.html

Comment left on californiastemcellreport:

LifeNews wrote of ConsumerWatchdog and PubPat:

The consumer groups argue the patenting has driven some scientists overseas because they can't profit from any follow-up work. That say the patents have done more to damage stem cell research in the United States than any lack of state or federal government funding.

Again, if stem cell scientists are free to practice (and profit from) their work outside the US, one might expect all kinds of advances outside the US. This does not seem to be the case.