Discusses a legal case about whether a plasmid discovered at and patented by the University of California at San Francisco contributed to the early success of Genentech, Inc. Evidence of the conflict in the pages of `Nature'; How the case shows the commercial pressures on the biotechnology industry.
TOBACCO industry, TOBACCO use, ACTIONS & defenses (Law), RESEARCH funding
Abstract
The tobacco industry, working through third parties to prevent policy-relevant research that adversely affected it between 1988 and 1998, used coordinated, well-funded strategies in repeated attempts to silence tobacco researcher Stanton A. Glantz. Tactics included advertising, litigation, and attempts to have the US Congress cut off the researcher's National Cancer Institute funding. Efforts like these can influence the policymaking process by silencing opposing voices and discouraging other scientists from doing work that may expose them to tobacco industry attacks. The support of highly credible public health organizations and of researchers' employers is crucial to the continued advancement of public health. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:45-58. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007. 130740) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Describes progress in the legal case in which the University of California, San Francisco, alleges that Genentech Inc. infringed on its patent for DNA for human growth hormone. Hormone leading to the development of the drug Protropin; Views of Genentech executives about the case; Details about key testimony; Problems with a paper published in `Nature' related to the case; Colleagues who have had to tesify against one another. INSET: Who's telling the truth about crucial plasmid?.