Lawyers' delights and geneticists' nightmares: at forty, the double helix shows some wrinkles.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) request to patent the base sequences of incomplete and uncharacterized fragments of DNA copied on messenger RNAs (cDNAs) extracted from human tissues, the refusal by the patent office, and the appeal placed by NIH, have incited a violent controversy, fueled by rational, as well as emotional elements. In a compromising mode between liberalism and protectionism, I propose that legal protection be considered only for those RNA/DNA sequences, either natural or artificial, which can generate practical applications per se, and not through their expression products. Another controversy is developing around a popular tool for genomic research: the fidelity of yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) libraries being distributed worldwide for physical mapping is being questioned. Some of these libraries have been shown to be affected by surprisingly high levels of co-cloning, in addition to more common gene reshuffling instances. Also in this case, scientific as well as non-scientific components have to be considered. Possible remedies for the underlying problems may be found in the proper use of kinetic, enzymatic and microbiological variables in the production of YACs. Here too, a sharper distinction between the secular and scientific gratifications of research could help.