What can this be called? An unusual approach or the emergence of a new history? Whatever it may be, but it I true that this has been one of the most bizarre approaches in the recent years in the realm of scientific investigative studies in the recent years. It has been found that four foremost stem cell scientists in the recent days have filed avowals with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The chief point of argument has been that the original embryonic stem cell work performed by the well-known researcher, Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was too obvious to deserve a patent.

It has been found after a thorough investigation by this correspondent that two particular consumer groups have been instrumental behind the entire process were found on the very last year in an equal mode while fighting actively with the UW patents and have been going on with the fighting since then. These two have filed comments along with the PTO while advocating the cause of the refutation of the agency in respect of the human embryonic stem cell patent contentions whereas at the same time being asserted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation or the WARF. It is to be noted in this respect that Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation chiefly deals with the mode of protection of the very basis of the intellectual property that are developed by the renowned scientists at the same venue. What's more, on the very last year the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights or the FTCR and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenged the patents a since they believed that right from the initiation, the patents had been offering the greatest stumbling block before stem cell research.

While being asked by this correspondent Dr. Douglas Melton of Harvard University who was also found in advocating the same position about the role of the patents said, "I very much believe Dr. Thomson deserves the scientific and public recognition he has received," "However, he deserves that recognition because he undertook the arduous and timely task of getting fresh and high quality embryos to use as starting material for his work, and sufficient funding for such research, not because he did anything that was inventive... His perseverance and commitment deserve recognition and accolades. But I believe that had any other stem cell scientist been given the same starting material and financial support, they could have made the same accomplishment, because the science required to isolate and maintain human embryonic stem cells was obvious," he concluded.