Mark Kleiman, Who Fought to Lift Ban on Marijuana, Dies at 68
Sam Roberts, NY Times, July 25, 2019
Mark A. R. Kleiman, a prominent drug policy apostate who favored what he viewed as a sensible middle ground on marijuana — eliminate criminal sanctions for selling and using it but preclude full-blown commercial legalization — died on Sunday in Manhattan. He was 68.
Kelly Kleiman, his sister and only immediate survivor, said the cause was lymphoma and complications of a kidney transplant he received from her in April.
Author, blogger, adviser to government and a teacher at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, Professor Kleiman considered himself a “policy entrepreneur.”
His purview extended beyond drugs to the broader criminal justice system, which he sought to reform by imposing “swift, certain and fair” punishment through shorter sentences and more resources devoted to probation and parole.
“When politicians say, ‘Let’s hire 5,000 more police!’ everybody cheers,” he told The New York Times in 1990. “Say, ‘Let’s hire 5,000 probation officers and create cost-effective alternatives to prison!’ and everybody yawns.”
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Professor Kleiman was best known for what was then a cry in the wilderness: a thesis that wars on drugs waged on the basis of enforcement had failed; that alcohol does more harm than cannabis; and that the cost of banning marijuana altogether outweighed any of the benefits of prohibition. At the same time, he warned that complete legalization remained a high-risk gamble.
What had seemed like a quixotic campaign in the ′80s has evolved more recently into pragmatic consultations with state governments, including New York’s, over how to carry out liberalized laws.
Some critics found Professor Kleiman prickly and prone to perch himself above the fray between opposing policy camps. But few challenged his acumen and relentless curiosity.
“Allergic to cant,” Patrick Radden Keefe wrote in The New Yorker in 2013, “he speaks with the bracing candor of a scientist in a disaster movie, and appears to derive grim pleasure from informing politicians that they have underestimated the complexity of a problem.”
When Professor Kleiman and a team of colleagues he had assembled were hired by Washington State in 2013 to help implement a law that legalized both the medical and recreational use of marijuana, he bombarded officials with so many suggestions that even he applied to himself a famous characterization of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey: “He’s got solutions the rest of us don’t even have problems for.”
The full name of Professor Kleiman’s consulting company is Botec Analysis Corporation; “Botec” stands for Back of the Envelope Calculation. While the name belied his exacting and encyclopedic approach to policy research, it acknowledged the ambiguities of an underground economy in which illegal drug trafficking generates millions of dollars.
In Washington, he startled state officials by predicting that loosening prohibitions on the sale and use of marijuana would initially raise the costs of law enforcement, because the police would have to deter illicit dealers who would otherwise undermine the fledgling legal market.
“What distinguished him was his ravenous and wide-ranging intellect and his commitment to sharing it,” Dr. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, friend and colleague in Washington. D.C., said in an email. “There are lots of brilliant people out there, but what I remember most and valued most and will miss the most is how generous he was with his own ideas and how gleefully, sometimes brutally, he’d help you dissect yours.”
Mark Robert Kleiman was born on May 18, 1951, in Phoenix to Dr. Allen and Jeanette (Albert) Kleiman. He was barely a teenager when he quirkily adopted “A” as an extra middle initial, from his mother’s maiden name, so that all four initials would spell Mark.
His mother taught economics and social science at, among other institutions, the historically black Morgan State University in Baltimore, where Mark grew up. His father was a surgeon.
Mark evinced a passion for public policy early. At 14, he was a page at the Maryland State Constitutional Convention. At 17, he was writing speeches for Parren James Mitchell, the first black congressman from Maryland since Reconstruction.
He earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Haverford College in Pennsylvania in 1972 and a master’s (in 1974) and a doctorate (1983), both in public policy, from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
After working as a special assistant to Edwin H. Land, the chief executive of Polaroid, Mr. Kleiman became director of program analysis for the Boston Office of Management and Budget. He then joined the Justice Department, where he was director of the Office of Policy and Management Analysis in the Criminal Division from 1982 to 1983.
He was a professor of public policy at U.C.L.A. for 18 years before joining N.Y.U. in 2015 as the director of the Crime and Justice Program at the Marron Institute of Urban Management and a professor of public policy at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.
Professor Kleiman was a frequent contributor to The Times’s videotaped “Bloggingheads” debates at nytimes.com.
In 1986, Professor Kleiman collaborated with Peter Reuter, a former director of the RAND Corporation’s Drug Policy Research Center, in analyzing the drug trade as a dynamic economic market rather than as a moral or criminal justice issue.
He also suggested at one point that marijuana users be licensed, like drivers, and that their purchases of the drug, like certain decongestants, be limited monthly.
He was the author of “Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control” (1989); “When Brute Force Fails” (2009), which was drawn from his study with Angela Hawken of Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation With Enforcement program, known as HOPE; and “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know” (2012), with Ms. Hawken, Jonathan Caulkins and Beau Kilmer.
He also organized a group blog, The Reality-Based Community.
“He was the most careful and original thinker of our time about criminal justice and drugs,” said Michael O’Hare of the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
“I have lots of colleagues who make me smarter by telling me stuff I didn’t know — nothing wrong with that,” Professor O’Hare said by email. “But Mark was one of the few from whom I always discovered what I hadn’t realized was solid, or fruitful (yes, or flaky or ill-informed) about my own thinking.”
Professor Kleiman had not been averse to using psychedelic drugs, but his typical stimulant of choice was chocolate. Asked once to estimate the impact of wholesale legalization of marijuana, he predicted precisely: 650,000 fewer arrests annually, 40,000 fewer people incarcerated and 15 billion stoned hours.
“You have to decide,” he told the assembled criminal justice experts, “whether a stoned hour is a good thing or a bad thing.”
In contrast, he equivocated when asked by The New Yorker about his personal experience with marijuana.
“If you do drug policy and you’re asked whether you use drugs, you’ve got two choices,” he replied. “You can say, ‘Yes, I’m a lawbreaker. Please come arrest me and ignore everything I say, because I’m a bad person.’ Or ‘No, actually, I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.’
“Since neither of those is an advantageous admission,” he added, “I don’t answer the question.”
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/books/mark-kleiman-dead.html
Friday, July 26, 2019
Thursday, July 25, 2019
CRISPR, CRISPR
![]() |
| Patent Office in 1924 |
https://www.prnewswire.com/news/university-of-california-office-of-the-president
We'd love to hear comments from experts as to the significance of this burst of news releases.* From Tuesday:
University of California granted two new U.S. CRISPR-Cas9 patents
USPTO continues to award U.S. CRISPR-Cas9 patents to UC with four issued this month; eight this year; 10 overall; 15 by end of summer
University of California Office of the President, July 23, 2019
BERKELEY, Calif., July 23, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has awarded two new patents to the University of California (UC), University of Vienna, and Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier covering methods of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology.
U.S. Patent 10,358,658 covers CRISPR methods for targeting and binding, modifying or cleaving a target DNA using single-molecule guide RNAs. U.S. Patent 10,358,659 covers CRISPR methods for targeting and binding, modifying or cleaving a target DNA with a Cas9 protein that contains a mutation in a RuvC and/or HNH domain and a single-molecule guide RNA.
These two patents join numerous related CRISPR-Cas9 patents that have issued to UC in prior weeks. Over the next several weeks, five additional applications are expected to issue as patents, which will grow UC's portfolio to 15 total patents. The portfolio covers various compositions and methods that allow for targeting and editing genes in any setting, including within plant, animal, and human cells, as well as modulating transcription.
"The USPTO's continued recognition of the significance and uniqueness of the Doudna-Charpentier team's work is a telling signal," said Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D., lead patent strategist on CRISPR-Cas9 matters for UC and a Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. "We anticipate further momentum and expansion of the portfolio as each aspect of this pioneering technology is formally recognized and receives the patent protection it deserves."
The Doudna-Charpentier team that invented the CRISPR-Cas9 DNA-targeting technology included Jennifer Doudna and Martin Jinek at the University of California, Berkeley; Emmanuelle Charpentier (then of Umea University); and Krzysztof Chylinski at the University of Vienna. The methods covered by today's patents, as well as the other methods claimed in UC's previously issued patents and those set to issue, were included among the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology work disclosed first by the Doudna-Charpentier team in its May 25, 2012 priority patent application.
Additional CRISPR-Cas9 patents in this team's portfolio include 10,000,772; 10,113,167; 10,227,611; 10,266,850; 10,301,651; 10,308,961; 10,337,029; and 10,351,878. These patents remain unchallenged and are not a part of the PTAB's recent interference declaration between 10 UC patent applications and multiple previously issued Broad Institute patents and one application, which jeopardizes essentially all of the Broad's CRISPR patents involving eukaryotic cells.
International patent offices have also recognized the pioneering innovations of the Doudna-Charpentier team, in addition to the ten patents granted in the U.S so far. The European Patent Office (representing more than 30 countries), as well as patent offices in the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and other countries, have issued patents for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in all types of cells.
University of California has a long-standing commitment to develop and apply its patented technologies, including CRISPR-Cas9, for the betterment of humankind. Consistent with its open-licensing policies, UC allows nonprofit institutions, including academic institutions, to use the technology for non-commercial educational and research purposes.
In the case of CRISPR-Cas9, UC has also encouraged widespread commercialization of the technology through its exclusive license with Caribou Biosciences, Inc. of Berkeley, California. Caribou has sublicensed this patent family to numerous companies worldwide, including Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. for certain human therapeutic applications. Additionally, Dr. Charpentier has licensed the technology to CRISPR Therapeutics AG and ERS Genomics Limited.
Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-of-california-granted-two-new-us-crispr-cas9-patents-300889156.html
===
*Send emails to daniel.j.b.mitchell@anderson.ucla.edu or use the comment option.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
For now, the Runaway Train on retiree healthcare has been put on a siding - Part 2
An official announcement was issued yesterday that confirms that the current Health Net plan for retirees is being replaced by a Medicare Advantage plan. It is reproduced below. As noted, the other plans will continue in their current form. There is no specific information on cost. Blog readers will know that there is no evidence of outsize health cost pressures in the economy at present.
UC to offer new Medicare Advantage PPO plan for 2020
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
After a thorough review of proposals, UC has entered into an agreement with UnitedHealthcare to offer UC retirees a new Medicare Advantage Preferred Provider Organization (MA PPO) plan beginning Jan. 1, 2020. The new plan will replace the Health Net Seniority Plus Medicare Advantage HMO beginning in the next plan year (2020). UC’s other Medicare plans, including the UC Medicare PPO and UC High Option Supplement to Medicare plans administered by Anthem and Kaiser’s Senior Advantage plan, will continue to be available in 2020. You do not need to take any action at this time.
This decision was guided by the findings of an evaluation team that included representatives from the Academic Senate, the Council of UC Emeriti Associations, the Council of UC Retiree Associations, and others. That group’s analysis determined that an MA PPO would offer a number of advantages for UC retirees, including comprehensive coverage at a lower premium than other plan options and the ability to see any provider that accepts Medicare (both in-network and out-of-network).
Systemwide Human Resources is working closely with UnitedHealthcare to finalize details of the plan offering so UC retirees are able to make informed decisions about their benefits for next year, and those enrolling in the new plan will be prepared for the transition. Additional information and opportunities to ask questions will be available in the coming months leading up to Open Enrollment (Oct. 31 – Nov. 26, 2019). Please keep an eye out for news in New Dimensions, UCnet and other benefits materials.
Source: https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2019/07/uc-to-offer-new-medicare-advantage-ppo-plan-for-2020.html
==========
Note: The prior report on this issue is at:
https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/06/for-now-runaway-train-on-retiree.html
UC to offer new Medicare Advantage PPO plan for 2020
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
After a thorough review of proposals, UC has entered into an agreement with UnitedHealthcare to offer UC retirees a new Medicare Advantage Preferred Provider Organization (MA PPO) plan beginning Jan. 1, 2020. The new plan will replace the Health Net Seniority Plus Medicare Advantage HMO beginning in the next plan year (2020). UC’s other Medicare plans, including the UC Medicare PPO and UC High Option Supplement to Medicare plans administered by Anthem and Kaiser’s Senior Advantage plan, will continue to be available in 2020. You do not need to take any action at this time.
This decision was guided by the findings of an evaluation team that included representatives from the Academic Senate, the Council of UC Emeriti Associations, the Council of UC Retiree Associations, and others. That group’s analysis determined that an MA PPO would offer a number of advantages for UC retirees, including comprehensive coverage at a lower premium than other plan options and the ability to see any provider that accepts Medicare (both in-network and out-of-network).
Systemwide Human Resources is working closely with UnitedHealthcare to finalize details of the plan offering so UC retirees are able to make informed decisions about their benefits for next year, and those enrolling in the new plan will be prepared for the transition. Additional information and opportunities to ask questions will be available in the coming months leading up to Open Enrollment (Oct. 31 – Nov. 26, 2019). Please keep an eye out for news in New Dimensions, UCnet and other benefits materials.
Source: https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2019/07/uc-to-offer-new-medicare-advantage-ppo-plan-for-2020.html
==========
Note: The prior report on this issue is at:
https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/06/for-now-runaway-train-on-retiree.html
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
UC and China
The LA Times yesterday ran a couple of articles about US-China tensions and the impact on UC.
UC San Diego professor Shirley Meng’s laboratory is a veritable United Nations of research, with 48 scholars from six countries exploring how to improve battery storage for electric vehicles, robots and — someday — flying cars.
But Meng and her colleagues worry that one country soon will be left out of the lab: China.
The Trump administration has intensified its crackdown over trade, technology and security — and now it has spread to America’s vaunted universities, turning the University of California into an especially big target.
UC campuses from San Diego to Berkeley are reporting that Chinese students and scholars are encountering visa delays, federal scrutiny over their research activities, and new restrictions on collaboration with China and Chinese companies.
The National Institutes of Health, a major source of university research funding, also has raised questions about current and former scientists at UC’s Berkeley, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and San Francisco campuses, prompting reviews of whether they followed federal grant rules, including confidentiality requirements and disclosures of outside support.
The National Institutes of Health, a major source of university research funding, also has raised questions about current and former scientists at UC’s Berkeley, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and San Francisco campuses, prompting reviews of whether they followed federal grant rules, including confidentiality requirements and disclosures of outside support.
The overarching fear is that Trump’s crackdown will drive away top Chinese scholars and jeopardize the kind of open international collaboration that has been a hallmark of higher education in the U.S., contributing to world-class research and scientific progress...
Labels:
politics,
UC,
UC-Berkeley,
UC-Riverside,
UC-San Diego,
UC-San Francisco,
UCLA
Hawaiian Telescope and Presidential Politics
UCLA Admits Down
Freshman Admits to UCLA:
Transfer Admits to UCLA:
UC schools boost acceptance rate compared to 2018
Nanette Asimov, July 23, 2019, San Francisco Chronicle
Getting into a coveted spot at the University of California got a little easier this year, as UC announced Monday it has accepted 62% of freshman applicants for its nine undergraduate campuses this fall, compared to 59% last year.
The university’s admissions report for fall 2019 UC contains an array of details to satisfy any UC junkie, including summaries of residence and ethnicity for those admitted, and the number who would become the first in their family to attend college.
While not everyone admitted will choose to enroll, UC has extended the invitation to 108,178 freshmen, leaving more than 68,000 disappointed applicants this year.
The university will also open its doors to 28,752 transfer students, or 76% of the 41,282 who applied.
But getting into UC doesn’t always mean that hopefuls will be admitted to the campus of their choice. All UC-qualified students have the option to enroll in the newest campus, UC Merced, where freshman admissions are up 10% over last year, to 18,456. But seats offered at selective UCLA, for example, plunged 14%, to 13,747.
Flagship campus UC Berkeley is also highly selective. And although acceptances rose 8% since last year, they are actually down over two years by more than 900 offers, a 6% drop to 14,657.
Overall, the university has offered admission to 136,930 incoming freshmen and transfer students this year, slightly higher than last year’s offers to 136,772 students...
Although the offer numbers top last year’s by only 158, UC officials expect about 2,500 more students than last year to accept. The university will report those numbers this fall...
Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Acceptance-rate-at-UC-schools-up-over-last-year-14115370.php
Source of tables above (and others): https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/content-analysis/ug-admissions/ug-pages/2019-admission.html
Transfer Admits to UCLA:
![]() |
| Click on charts to enlarge |
Nanette Asimov, July 23, 2019, San Francisco Chronicle
Getting into a coveted spot at the University of California got a little easier this year, as UC announced Monday it has accepted 62% of freshman applicants for its nine undergraduate campuses this fall, compared to 59% last year.
The university’s admissions report for fall 2019 UC contains an array of details to satisfy any UC junkie, including summaries of residence and ethnicity for those admitted, and the number who would become the first in their family to attend college.
While not everyone admitted will choose to enroll, UC has extended the invitation to 108,178 freshmen, leaving more than 68,000 disappointed applicants this year.
The university will also open its doors to 28,752 transfer students, or 76% of the 41,282 who applied.
But getting into UC doesn’t always mean that hopefuls will be admitted to the campus of their choice. All UC-qualified students have the option to enroll in the newest campus, UC Merced, where freshman admissions are up 10% over last year, to 18,456. But seats offered at selective UCLA, for example, plunged 14%, to 13,747.
Flagship campus UC Berkeley is also highly selective. And although acceptances rose 8% since last year, they are actually down over two years by more than 900 offers, a 6% drop to 14,657.
Overall, the university has offered admission to 136,930 incoming freshmen and transfer students this year, slightly higher than last year’s offers to 136,772 students...
Although the offer numbers top last year’s by only 158, UC officials expect about 2,500 more students than last year to accept. The university will report those numbers this fall...
Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Acceptance-rate-at-UC-schools-up-over-last-year-14115370.php
Source of tables above (and others): https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/content-analysis/ug-admissions/ug-pages/2019-admission.html
Labels:
admissions,
UC,
UC enrollment,
UCLA
CRISPR never ends
![]() |
| Patent Office: 1924 |
Fight for coveted CRISPR patents gets knottier,
as MilliporeSigma makes new claims
STAT, Sharon Begley, 7-22-19
After nearly seven years of failing to win
fundamental patents on the genome-editing technology CRISPR, a unit of one of
the world’s largest life sciences companies has thrown a Hail Mary: Late last
Friday, MilliporeSigma petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to open
an interference proceeding between CRISPR-Cas9 patents that it applied for way
back in 2012 and patents that the University of California has applied for or
been awarded.
The unusual move — New York Law School patent
expert Jacob Sherkow’s reaction was “holy s***,” and MilliporeSigma itself
described the circumstances as “extraordinary” — seems to be the company’s
last-ditch effort to pull out a CRISPR victory at the patent office, which it
believes has treated its applications in a way that is inconsistent with how it
has treated others.
“What we’re trying to do with this petition is
highlight a fundamental unfairness in how Sigma-Aldrich’s patent applications”
covering the use of CRISPR in plants and animals, or eukaryotes, “are being
handled compared to others’,” company attorney Benjamin Sodey said, referring
to the MilliporeSigma unit.
The move could have implications beyond
intellectual property rights. MilliporeSigma argues that two scientists at its
St. Louis lab, Greg Davis and Fuqiang Chen, were the first to get the CRISPR
system to edit eukaryotes. That system is a “guide RNA” that finds a specific
nucleotide sequence on a genome, paired with an enzyme that cuts the DNA so a
disease-causing segment can be excised or a repair segment can be inserted.
“We have not been very visible” in discussions of
CRISPR credit, said geneticist Supriya Shivakumar, head of strategy for gene
editing at MilliporeSigma, a unit of Germany-based Merck KGaA. “We would like
it to be recognized that our scientists did some amazing discovery work that
led to the use of CRISPR in eukaryotes.”
The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard pushed
back hard against the implication that its scientists, led by Feng Zhang, came
in second.
“Feng Zhang first used CRISPR in eukaryotic
cells,” Broad spokesman David Cameron told STAT.
An interference proceeding determines whether two
patents describe essentially the same invention. If so, then (under the law
that prevailed when the disputed patents were all filed) the scientists who
were the first to invent are awarded the patent.
Last month, the patent office declared an
interference between UC and the Broad, meaning it believes that a dozen key
CRISPR patents awarded to the Broad and 10 CRISPR patent applications by UC and
its partners describe substantially similar
inventions.
MilliporeSigma is asking the patent office to
conduct a parallel interference proceeding, between the company and UC,
concurrent with its Broad/UC interference. The latter will determine whether
Zhang’s invention of CRISPR-Cas9 to edit eukaryotes is essentially the same as
inventions by UC’s Jennifer Doudna and her colleagues. Although the UC team
showed that CRISPR can edit DNA floating in a test tube, and not in cells, its
patents (eight so far) cover the use of CRISPR in all systems — inside cells,
outside cells, genomes of eukaryotes and genomes of lower organisms.
A representative for UC’s attorney said she has
no comment in the MilliporeSigma petition.
For years, the patent office has denied
MilliporeSigma’s applications (including 15/188,911, 15/456,204, and
15/188,924) to patent CRISPR-Cas9 editing in eukaryotic genomes. The first of
these was filed on December 6, 2012, six days before the Broad’s application on
Zhang’s work.
MilliporeSigma has petitioned the patent office
for an interference between it and UC, and not between it and the Broad,
because the patent examiner has cited only the UC patents in denying the
company’s applications.
The reason for the denial, according to
MilliporeSigma’s petition, is the examiner’s conclusion that the Chen-Davis
work in eukaryotes is obvious given Doudna’s on DNA in test tubes. As it
happens, a previous interference between UC and the Broad revolved around this
“obviousness” point. But last year a federal court upheld the patent office’s
2017 decision that Doudna’s test tube breakthrough did not make Zhang’s success
getting CRISPR to edit genomes inside mammalian cells “obvious.” The Broad got
to keep its key CRISPR patents.
MilliporeSigma argues that the same reasoning
should clear the way for its patents on CRISPR in eukaryotes. That is, if the
Broad’s eukaryote work was not obvious given UC’s, then Sigma-Aldrich’s isn’t
either. “UC’s disclosure of CRISPR-Cas9 in in vitro cell-free and nucleus-free
test tube environments … [does not] render obvious claims directed to
CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells,” its petition says.
The company is clearly aggrieved, sprinkling its
petition with words such as “frustratingly,” a quote from Yogi Berra (“it’s
like déjà vu all over again”), and assertions that the examiner “simply
responds again and again that she finds Sigma-Aldrich’s evidence
‘unpersuasive’,” dismissed its arguments “in little more than a single paragraph,
superficially,” and is guilty of “blatant inconsistency” and “demonstrable
unfairness” to MilliporeSigma. In contrast, it has won CRISPR patents in
Australia and Europe.
If the patent office conducts an interference
proceeding between the company and UC, there are two possible outcomes. It can
conclude that their CRISPR inventions are different enough that both can be
granted patents, as happened with the first UC-Broad interference. Or, it can
conclude that the two parties’ CRISPR inventions are substantially the same. In
that case, the next step is to determine who invented it first. MilliporeSigma
believes Davis and Chen did.
“If the patent office is deciding” who invented
CRISPR in eukaryotes, MilliporeSigma’s lawyer Sodey said, “we believe [we]
should be part of that conversation.”
That argument runs counter to all CRISPR
histories. Numerous prizes have honored Doudna and her chief colleague,
Emmanuelle Charpentier, as well as Zhang, for inventing CRISPR genome editing.
One author who has extensively researched that history said none of the experts
he interviewed ever mentioned Davis and Chen. The pair did not publish on
CRISPR, though industry scientists often skip journals and file patent
applications instead.
Attorneys
who have worked on the seemingly endless CRISPR patent fights, who asked not to
be named to preserve client confidentiality, called MilliporeSigma’s move
“interesting” and even “fascinating.” But “I have never seen a parallel
interference declared,” said one. “I don’t think the patent office will be
moved.”
Source: Email from UC Daily News Notes of 7-22-19
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







