VICTORY: EPA to Reopen Libraries

After much sturm and drang, including a scathing GAO report, withering criticism from Congress, the public (including yours truly) and objections from its own employees, EPA recently inked an MOA with the American Federation of Government Employees to reopen all the libraries EPA shuttered in 2006. I previously blogged about this issue here and here.

The libraries to be reopened included the libraries in three regional offices and the specialized Chemical Library at EPA's Washington, DC, headquarters. EPA will also restore operating hours and public access that had been slashed at several other libraries.

This is good news!! EPA's network of libraries are a vital information source for the public and for EPA staff. Much of the material in the collections is elsewhere. Many EPA scientists had been very vocal about how the library closings would hamper their ability to protect the public and the environment.

The ostensible purpose behind the library closures was cost reduction, but this claim was, at best, illusory--the agency's own studies showed that every $1.00 spent, its library network provided between $2.00 and $5.70 worth of benefits. (primarily through increased efficiency from EPA staff that did not have to spend needless hours tracking down or recreating technical documents.)

In a week in which EPA's gag order surfaced, directing its staff “not respond to questions or make any statements” if contacted by congressional investigators (GAO), reporters or EPA's own internal Office of Inspector General, this is a welcome victory for transparency and public accountability.

Too bad EPA can't buy back the $50,000 worth of Region 6 library fixtures and furniture sold through a hasty General Services Administration (GSA) auction for less than $350.

A Crash Course in Intellectual Property

In my professional life, I deal with intellectual property questions on a routine basis. As a property professor, and a biolaw scholar, patent (and sometimes copyright) issues are my bread and butter. But, recent events in my life have reminded me just how much there is that I don't know.

My partner Allen wrote a children's opera, Gargoyle Garden that is being performed as part of the 2008 NYC Fringe Festival. Allen and his collaborator Jeff LaGreca have been pelting me with copyright questions. It has become embarrassingly clear (to me, at least) that I can answer few if any of them. To them I am the "expert." And, within a short period of time I have been able to provide answers to every question they have posed. But, my scramble to get up to speed has made me think long and hard about what an expert actually is. Is it someone who knows the answers or someone who knows how to find out the answers? If I didn't know the answer an hour ago, am I still an expert? Do experts really only exist in the eyes of novices?

Since my current research focuses on how perceptions of expertise affect regulatory trust, this process has been an extremely fruitful one for my scholarship. Life imitating art?

drawing credit here.

UPDATE: In response to this post, Ed over at Blawgreview sent me the following quote of the day from July 21, 2008

My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows
enough about what's really going on to be scared.

P. J. Plauger, Computer Language, March 1983

Thanks Ed!

UPDATE: The Gargoyle Garden just finished a very successful run. Thanks to everyone who sent good wishes. For those interested, here are two of the reviews

Review 1: TimeOut New York gave the show 4 starts: see gargoyle garden musical by schulz & lagreca

Review 2: The American Theatre Web gave a nice review: see gargoyle garden musical by schulz & lagreca

The Daily News also gave the show a nice plug: see gargoyle garden musical by schulz & lagreca

Affymetrix' Wings Gets SNPed

Sometimes a single nucleotide variant among the thousands that make up a typical gene can indicate significant abnormality in a patient. These needles in genomic haystacks, called "Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms", or "SNPs", can be not only medically useful, but also quite lucrative to medical diagnostic companies as well.

In 1999, Biologists John Landers, Barbara Jordan, David E. Housman, and Alain Charest filed a patent application claiming "method[s] of genotyping...based on the use of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to perform high throughput genome scans." These methods claimed by Lander et al. allow high-throughput screening of patients' genomes for SNPs relevant to diseases. Lander et al. assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") their patent, United Patent Number 6,703,228 (the "'228 patent"), claiming, for example:

Claim 1. A method for detecting the presence or absence of a single nucteotide polymorphism (SNP) allele in a genomic DNA sample, the method comprising:

preparing a reduced complexity genome (RCG) from the genomic DNA sample, wherein the RCG is a randomly primed PCR-derived RCG, and
analyzing the RCG for the presence or absence of a SNP allele.

Affymetrix is a California company that sells microarrays - devices capable of rapidly testing large numbers of genes for the presence of particularly indicative SNPs. On July 1, 2008, MIT and E8 Pharmaceuticals sued Affymetrix for infringing the '228 patent, and engaged the services of Wiley Rein, a D.C. law firm that won a patent infringement settlement of more than half a billion dollars from BlackBerry-maker, Research In Motion. Affymetrix had previously lost an interference proceeding in the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") that contested Lander et al.'s claim to have been the first inventors of these methods, and now stands to suffer huge damages should it be found to infringe the '228 patent.

Affymetrix has long been a vocal opponent of the validity of many so called "gene" patents, a position that dovetails nicely with the company's strong desire not to be forced to license the many existing SNP patents one by one. Now, the company is being sued not on specific SNP patents, but on a patent that claims methods of detecting those SNPs. Affymetrix has alleged that claims of the '228 patent are invalid. Where Affymetrix previously argued that it was the rightful owner of '228 patent-like claims, now the company considers such claims - owned by another - to be invalid. The result may exert considerable influence over the future of personal medicine.

Farmed Atlantic Salmon Escaping into the Pacific Northwest

Last week as many as 30,000 Atlantic salmon escaped from an aquaculture operation off the coast of British Columbia. This escape is among the largest in recent years and the likelihood of re-capturing more than 10% is low.

Escapes from open-net cage salmon farms are not uncommon. An estimated 3 million farmed salmon escape annually throughout the globe. Environmental advocates urge the use of closed pens, or conatinment tanks, for salmon farming.


Farmed salmon may be a concern wherever they escape, but in the Pacific Northwest the major concern is their impact on threatened and endangered salmon stocks in the area.

Wild Pacific salmon and steelhead face a number of threats, including potential impacts of hatchery-reared specimens, that complicate legal mechanisms for conserving these populations. Development pressure, dams and other human demands on the ecosystem make complete resoration of the runs virtually impossible. Escaped Atlantic salmon add additional difficulties: parasites & potential competition.

Farmed salmon are more likely to be infested with potentially fatal sea lice than wild fish. There is some evidence that wild Pacific salmon acquire sea lice from merely swimming near aquaculture pens -- escape may make infestation of wild stocks all the more likely.

Perhaps more importantly, the escaped fish may compete with native salmon for food or fresh water spawning grounds, for example, and may prey on Pacific fry. Environmentalists emphasize the risk, the aquaculture industry downplays it. Governmental assessments of the risk posed by escapees vary (see for example, WDFW and USNFS), but given the precarious condition of many wild Pacific salmon populations it is wise to be very cautious.

Marine Harvest Canada, which owns and operates the farm from which the fish escaped, appears to give geniune attention to environmental issues and has recently entered into an agreement with WWF-Norway. On the other hand, an ongoing investigation is not the first time that Canadian officials have targeted the company for possible liability over escapes.