6 
One question remains: whether the subject of the patentable 
processes (specifically recombinant DNA techniques) is of such a dis- 
tinctive nature that financial return to the inventors should be denied. 
This position 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 though developed partially or wholly with 
public funds. Such inventions include vaccines for rubella and rabies, 
treatments for herpes infections of the eye, and treatments for uremia. 
The argument that commercial development of these inventions based on 
patent protection assures maximum benefits 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 my decision, 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 universities. But such agreements should be amended to ensure that, 
in any production or use of recombinant DNA molecules, the licensees 
will comply with the physical and biological containment standards set 
forth in the Guidelines. This decision was announced in March 1978, 
[Appendix B — 250] 
