CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 01129 
DIVISION OF BIOLOGY 190-20 
September lU, 1976 
Donald S. Fredrickson, M.D. , Director 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 
Dear Don: 
I am writing in response to your letter of September 8 concerning the 
patent situation relating to recombinant DNA research. 
I should make clear that I am in no way skilled in the nuances and subtleties 
of patent law. Frankly, as a scientist it strikes me as vaguely ludicrous 
that one could or would seek or obtain patents concerning recombinant DNA. 
Without in any way wishing to denigrate the achievements of the Stanford 
scientists (or those elsewhere) it is evident that their contributions here 
are a small increment to the great advances in our knowledge of molecular 
biology and molecular genetics over the past 25 years that have made 
recombinant DNA possible (consider the research upon DNA structure and 
function, upon transformation and transinfection , upon E_. coli genetics, 
upon plasmids, upon restriction enzymes, upon antibody resistance, etc. etc.). 
And it is the NIH that has, very largely, provided the funds for the research 
that permitted these advances. 
Nevertheless, if patents can and will be obtained then it is indeed a matter 
of importance who will own and control them. I would prefer to see ownership 
and control vested in the HEW which would then presumably exercise such 
control in the public interest. This would reduce the likelihood of adverse 
patent claims and would place control in the hands of a public body rather 
than in the hands of numerous individual institutions with diverse objectives 
and policies. 
As you indicate, the rapid dissemination of research and safety results is 
indeed important; I hope that the requirements of patent protection will 
not necessitate any serious, compromise of this principle. 
With best wishes. 
Robert L. Sinsheimer 
Chairman 
[ 74 ] 
