Saturday, March 25, 2006

Symp. on Econ. Implications of State-Funded Stem Cell Research

On April 15, 2005 (about one year ago), there was a Princeton-hosted symposium on the policy and economic implications of state-funded stem cell research. There is a report based on the symposium. No where in the report is there a discussion of Merck v. Integra, then pending and later decided in 2005 (and discussed, for example, by me in April 2005), Florida Prepaid Postsecondary, or of issues in the use by states of tax-exempt bonds with patent royalty collection. The 2004 paper by Woo Suk Hwang is mentioned on page 16 (endnote 13), referencing work discussed on page 10 of an important "proof in principle." The 2004 paper by Hwang was retracted in 2006. Hwang's 2005 paper was not yet published on April 15, 2005.

Speakers from Stanford University included Roger G. Noll, Laurence Baker and Nobel laureate Paul Berg.

Within the report from the symposium, California's approach is referred to as being on an NIH-model, but those of New Jersey and New York as being on free market approach.

The report does mention patent rights of WARF, and mentions that some of these are licensed exclusively to Geron.

Governor Codey told the audience "And to ensure citizens of New Jersey who support stem cell research benefit, the state will share in 5% of the patent royalties."

Noll mentioned "cashing in on royalties from patents arising from the research."

In Noll's section, there is some discussion of IP theory beginning at page 29 of the report. The Bayh-Dole Act is mentioned at page 30. The lawsuits against CIRM are mentioned at page 33. There is a section entitled "pork barrel" at page 37.

Patents again come up on page 45.

Baker and Deal's section begins at page 51. At page 70, there is an erroneous mention of the "17 year life" of a patent. Patent royalty revenue comes up on pages 70 and 71.


Post a Comment

<< Home