16 
However, in the absence of legislation, a condition in the IPAs to require 
assurances of compliance with the safety standards in the NIH guidelines 
is warranted. 
This leaves the residual question whether the subject of the patent- 
able processes (recombinant DNA techniques) is of such a peculiar nature 
that financial return to the inventors should be denied. This argument, 
too, had few advocates among the commentators. There are no compelling 
economic, social, or moral reasons to distinguish these inventions from 
others involving biological substances or processes that have been patented, 
even when partially or wholly developed with public funds. Such inventions 
include vaccines for rubella and rabies, treatments for herpes infections 
of the eye, treatments for uremia, and prostaglandins — compounds that may 
have a number of possible medical uses. The argument that commercial 
development based on patent protection has or will assure maximum benefits 
of these inventions to the public applies as well to the putative benefits 
of recombinant DNA inventions. 
It is recognized that Federal patent policies are under extensive 
review by the Executive Branch and the Congress. This may lead to actions 
that could affect the administration of Institutional Patent Agreements 
generally and the conditions for recombinant DNA research inventions 
specifically. 
It is recommended, however, that recombinant DNA research inventions 
developed under DHEW-NIH support should, at least for the present, continue 
to be administered within current DHEW patent agreements with the univer- 
sities. But each agreement should be amended to ensure that the licensees 
[ 18 ] 
