1 
To 
From 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 
date September 28, 1976 
Mr. James 
Gustafson 
Department Divinity School 
Cedric L. 
Chernick 
department Sponsored Programs 
IN RE: 
I believe that it is improper for PHS to use patents as a means for 
"regulating" recombinant DNA research. Two thoughts come to mind: 
1) If NIH is interested in rapid dissemination of research 
and safety results it should realize that publication is 
more likely to be delayed by the time it takes a journal to 
review and publish an article than by patent considerations. 
2) If NIH is interested in safety and public apprehension then 
there should be some form of control over all recombinant 
DNA work- - irrespective of the source of the support funds, 
and without consideration as to whether or not the work is 
patentable . 
We have had little experience at Chicago with patents. The University 
Statutes forbid faculty and other employees holding patents on work 
done on campus. We are experimenting with some variations in this 
policy and have not found any problems or conflicts with rapid publication. 
The DHEW patent attorney (Norman Latker) and other Federal agency 
officials seem willing to allow filing of patent applications prior 
to a determination as to who eventually holds patent rights. This 
’relaxing' of the requirements is generally based on an assurance that 
rights will later be assigned to the government if it is determined 
that the government should hold the patent. This procedure allows 
early filing and hence early publication, without prejudicing any 
rights . 
My view, as previously expressed, is that the patents issue is a 
red herring. DHEW should decide what, if anything, should be regulated 
and then do it. Universities, not this one, with significant patent 
programs will oppose encroachment on their perceived patent rights, and 
might regard this is the opening shot in a war. DHEW appears to be 
trying to finesse a responsibility. We should help them to avoid such 
a decision. 
[ 104 ] 
