| Popis: |
Before the mid-1970s, scientists involved in biological research usually exchanged cells and vectors freely. Such exchanges served as a method of obtaining critical review and confirmation by peers. In addition, such exchanges often were quid pro quo, useful in obtaining similar material from others. These exchanges were not usually encumbered by con- tracts or legal restrictions; instead, they were governed by unwritten understandings and ethical standards. However, the huge increase in industrial and commercial interest in genetic engineering greatly increased the potential value of cells and vectors. Inevitably, several unwritten under- standings fell apart, creating some disappointments, some bitterness, and at least one lawsuit*. Both industry and academia responded by adopting various written agreements to control the exchange of biological material. The first few agreements were indivi- dually negotiated and agreed to by both sides. Before long, most corporations that released material to academic resear- chers developed form agreements to simplify and expedite releases that did not require individual attention. In early 1983, the Biological Sciences Group of the Mon- santo Corporate Research and Development Staff recog- nized that it needed to consider the issue of form agree- ments. Research in several fields was progressing rapidly and scientists throughout the Biological Sciences Group were anxious to be able to exchange cells and vectors with academic researchers. In particular, Monsanto received a large number of requests for plant cell transformation vectors, which were first announced in January 1983. Unlike cells and vectors which express specific metabolites, the plant cell vectors were capable of inserting any DNA sequence into the chromosomes of a wide variety of plant cells. A group of Monsanto attorneys and scientists therefore began to draft a set of agreements for use in connection with the release of biological materials. This task began with a review of the forms that were currently in use by several other corporations and institu- tions in the United States, as well as several publications L It was soon recognized that no two forms were alike; varia- tions in terminology and conditions were often subtle or unclear. It was doubtful that researchers would fully under- stand the varying implications of different forms, and likely |
