Behind the Times

Perhaps you saw the January 18, 2006 article by Barry Cox of the NewScientist.com news service, the one titled “Disgraced cloning pioneer could keep his patents.“ Here is an excerpt: “A patent application, filed by disgraced stem cell scientist Woo Suk Hwang and colleagues and based on work now admitted to be fabricated, may nevertheless be granted, a New Scientist investigation has found . . . The UK Patent Office has taken a leading role in trying to clarify what aspects of stem cell research can be patented in Europe. Lawrence Smith-Higgins at the UKPO says: `European patent examiners are not interested in whether something will work or not. The commercial world, which is where patents belong, will judge. As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws – like time travel – research has no bearing on the grant of a patent.’” I am confident that you, like me, were left wondering how Mr. Smith-Higgins, if not all European patent examiners, could be so ill-informed about time travel. Should we really have to point out well-established facts such as the following? 1. In the late 1800’s a man built a time machine, traveled into the future, and discovered a utopian society called the Eloi. 2. In 1912 actress Elise McKenna was visited by playwright Richard Collier, a time traveler from the 1970s. 3. In the 1930s social worker Edith Keeler was visited by three men from the future, with the last names of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I could go on, but what would be the point?