National Academy of Sciences 
orncc or tnc ••choc*»t 
• •O' CONSTITUTION AVC NUl 
waihinqtqn.O C IO + • 
October 18, 1976 
Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson 
Director 
National Institutes of Health 
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 
Dear Don: 
I write in response to your letter of September 8 to express 
our appreciation for being kept abreast of the developments within 
your Department concerning recombinant DNA research. I also am 
responding to your solicitation of views concerning the Department's 
patent policy as it relates to policy option for dealing with the 
transfer of technology arising from such research. Your communica- 
tion was submitted to the Executive Committee of the Assembly of 
Life Sciences for their information and review. However, the mem- 
bership of that Committee has had rather limited experience with 
both governmental patent policy and patent practices in general. 
Accordingly, they were understandably reluctant to take a position 
or formally comment upon the options suggested in your letter. They 
did agree, however, that the overriding consideration was the effec- 
tiveness of the adopted approach in insuring compliance with the 
research guidelines of the National Institutes of Health. I agree, 
and must add that there is certainly no need to provide the incen- 
tive of patentability to assure that the potential societal bene- 
fits of the technology in question will be vigorously pursued. 
After reviewing the conditions as described in your letter and 
upon further discussions with staff of the National Research Council, 
my own view is that, of the policy options listed in your letter. 
Option Four would seem to provide the most useful mechanism for 
serving the several policy objectives of the Department, as outlined 
in your letter, i.e., facilitating the transfer of technology, pro- 
moting the dissemination of research information, and protecting the 
public Interest as reflected in the guidelines on DNA research. 
[143] 
