that human application was clearly on the minds of whoeverrnprepared these documents.rnShortly before giving a lecture in Zurich, Switzedand, lastrnsummer, I met the patent attorney mentioned above. Hernpassed these documents along to me, and asked whether I knewrnanything about this case. Unaware of it, I promised to inquire.rnOn the Friday before the Labor Day weekend, I reached byrnphone the director of MSU’s “intellectual property” office. Uponrnmentioning the subject of my query, his pleasantly officiousrnvoice grew uncertain. “Oh, no,” he whispered. He went on tornreport that one of the inventors of the compound had discussedrnearly on the drug’s marketing potential if used on humans, butrnthe idea had been squelched. He said that the legal work forrnthe European patent had been guided by the large multinationalrncorporation that would produce and market the compoundrnin Europe, but he was unable to release its name. Afterrnpromising to call back with more information, he sighed andrnsaid, “You know, you’ve ruined my weekend.”rnAbout four hours later, the same official called back. A conversationrnwith the university’s attorney had restored his composure.rnHe now reported that the licensing agreement with thernunnamed company only allowed animal use, and that the languagernin the European patent claim was simply lawyer talk, designedrnto secure the best and broadest protection of patentrnrights for the client. It would be “misleading,” he said, to sayrnthat the patent claim covered human use. In a subsequent conversation,rnI asked him if MSU would be willing to issue a statementrnfully renouncing human use. He replied that he did notrnhave that authority, but would ask others who did.rnTwo weeks passed, and I heard no more. On September 22rnthe Detroit News ran my editorial, “MSU Gets into the EuthanasiarnBusiness.”rnThe mysterious European multinational that had fundedrnthe relevant MSU research has since come out of the closet.rnIt turned out to be Hoechst-Roussel, the $100-billion-a-yearrncorporation in the headlines most recently for the terminationrnof its association with RU486, the so-called abortion pill. Curiously,rnthough, the company vehemently denied any role inrnseeking protection for human application of the MSU euthanasiarndrug.rnIndeed, when Mut Zur Ethik filed a challenge to MSU’s Europeanrnpatent award in late 1996, Hoechst-Roussel followedrnsuit, independently arguing that Article 53 of the Europeanrnpatent convention—which specifies that patents shall not berngranted for “inventions the publication or exploitation of whichrnwould be contrary to ‘ordre public’ or morality”—should comerninto play. Both Mut Zur Ethik and Hoechst-Roussel cited thernMSU patent’s coverage of potential human use as the basis forrntheir objection.rnIn January, I received a letter from MSU President PeterrnMcPherson, stating:rnMSU will never seek to benefit financially from use ofrnsuch a drug for humans, and neither [the inventor] norrnMSU will authorize use of the drug composition for humans.rnIn addition, we are currently working with therncompany which licensed the composition to further definernits field of use to include only specific lower mammalsrnsuch as cats, dogs, etc.rnWhereas Hoechst-Roussel had willingly sacrificed commercialrninterests to set matters right, the MSU statement fell short ofrnbeing legally binding, actually leaving all options open for thernfuture.rnIn fact, this whole story highlights American universities today.rnAs Rockford Institute founder John Howard has longrnwarned, the triumph of the research function over the traditionalrnteaching function at our universities would eventuallyrnhave perverse results. Add to this the quest for profits throughrnunion with corporate largesse, and our universities have enteredrnan ethical black hole, no longer able even to recognize a moralrnquestion.rnHe went on to report that one ofrnthe inventors of the compoundrnhad discussed early on the drug’s marketingrnpotential if used on humans, butrnthe idea had been squelched.rnAs the concerned German attorney asked me in Zurich, “Dornthe people of Michigan know about this patent?” I said it wasrnunlikely, adding that such matters, being the province of bureaucracies,rnwere usually concealed from public view.rnThe MSU story also brings to mind the “T4” euthanasia program,rnsecretly implemented with government blessing by Germanrndoctors in 1939 (this was the one extermination order thatrnAdolf Hitler actually signed, a mistake he did not repeat). It beganrnwith the grant of a “mercy death” to 5,000 mentally andrnphysically handicapped children (“making angels,” the physiciansrnand nurses called it) and later counted 70,000 adult victimsrnas well. The popular German media abetted Hitler’srnplans. A 1940 film, Ich Klage An (“I accuse”), concerned a pioneeringrnprofessor of pathology, Thomas Heyt, whose rich andrnbeautiful wife Banna develops multiple sclerosis. After Heyt’srnfrantic research efforts to develop a cure fail, he gives his wife arneuthanasia drug. To piano accompaniment, the couple savsrnfarewell:rnHanna:… I wish that was the end, Thomas.rnHeyt: It is the end, Hanna.rnHanna: How I love you Thomas. . . [He weeps]rnHanna: I wish I could give you my hand, Thomas.rnThis episode in culturally-conditioned, state-sanctioned murderrnonly came to an end a year later, when mounting suspicionsrnamong the citizenry swelled into a public protest by CatholicrnBishop Clemens August von Galen.rnMichigan State University, of course, is far removed fromrnsuch organized destruction of human life. The school may justrnwant to protect its rights, lest they be claimed some day byrnanother state-capitalist entity. But I wonder, with Bill Clintonrnin a remorseful mood, if now isn’t the time that we apologizernto the Germans for those misguided “doctor” trials atrnNuremberg. xrnAUGUST 1997/21rnrnrn