Albert Schat, Ph.D.
HomeAbout Dr. SchatzArticles by Dr. SchatzArchived CollectionsSite MapContact Us

Search is Powered by: Google

(Note from Webmaster: Google has indexed very few pages on this web site. The Google Search above may not reflect all content on this site.)

Source: Newark Evening News: March 10, 1950
Print Article | Open Image Viewer

Suit Accuses Waksman

Former Student Says He Discovered Streptomycin, Demands Accounting From Foundation


Trenton Bureau

TRENTON – A former graduate student at Rutgers University, who claims to have been codiscoverer of streptomycin, brought suit today in Superior Court against Dr. Selman A. Waksman and the Rutgers Research and Endowment Foundation.

The 30-year-old plaintiff, Albert Schatz of 210 Riverdale avenue, Brooklyn, is now an assistant professor in the biology department of Brooklyn College. He asked an accounting of royalties received from manufacture and sale of the new drug. He also asked that Waksman be restrained from representing himself as its sole discoverer.

The complaint, filed today in the Chancery Division of the court by Jerome C. Eisenberg, Newark attorney, stated that, while Schatz was a student under Waksman in the Rutgers department of soil microbiology in 1943, he conducted experiments and research "in continuation of prior work done by him (Schatz)" which eventually led to isolation and discovery of streptomycin.

"Without Merit"

Russell Watson, counsel for the Rutgers foundation, said today that Schatz's claim is "utterly without merit" and that the "legal action will be vigorously defended." He said the patent in question has been owned "from the beginning" by the foundation which he described as a nonprofit corporation affiliated with the university.

Schatz said that his research and experimentation were checked and confirmed by Waksman and that thereafter the two "collaborated in further development of the said drug, eventually proving its great value in the treatment of diseases."

The complaint noted that Schatz and Waksman made joint application in the U. S. Patent Office in February, 1945, for patents on streptomycin. In May, 1946, it alleged, Waksman persuaded Schatz to join in assigning the patent application to the Rutgers foundation.

"Fear of Power"

The complaint stated that Schatz received no consideration for executing the assignment and that he did so in reliance on Dr. Waksman's representations and in fear that Dr. Waksman "by virtue of his power, position and influence had the means to prevent the plaintiff from securing gainful employment in the scientific and professional field for which he was trained."

The complaint said that on September 21, 1948, the patent office granted patent No. 2,449,866, entitled "Streptomycin and Process of Preparation" to "Selman A. Waksman and Albert Schatz, assignors to Rutgers Research and Endowment Foundation."

Besides demanding a financial accounting and a restraint on Wakanian's claim as sole discoverer, the suit asked that all assignments made by Schatz to the foundation be set aside and that the defendants be directed to pay Schatz "such sum or sums as the court shall find to be due him."

The complaint charged that the defendants have issued licenses to manufacture and sell streptomycin and that they have received and will continue to receive "large sums of money by way of royalties."

'Reaped Rewards'

It also stated that Dr. Waksman, "by representing himself as sole discoverer has reaped rewards, both monetary and professional, to his sole benefit and to the damage and injury of the plaintiff."The complaint said that Schatz has demanded payment of half of all proceeds received by the defendants "in exploiting the discovery" of the drug but that such payment has been refused.

During the period or research referred to in the complaint, Schatz, who had received his baccalaureate degree from Rutgers in 1942, was working for a doctor's degree which he was awarded in 1945. Waksman, who now holds the title of director of the Rutgers Institute of Microbiology, was at that time professor of soil microbiology and head of the department.

The complaint said that at that time a "very close personal relationship" existed between Waksman and Schatz.

"The plaintiff," it stated, "relied upon the defendant Waksman's advice in all matters touching upon the plaintiff's welfare and reposed implicit confidence and trust in the said defendant with the full knowledge of the said defendant."

"To Prevent Profit"

Schatz signed the patent application, the complaint said, in reliance on Waksman's representation that the "sole purpose in applying" was to "prevent anyone from gaining a monopoly in the manufacture of streptomycin and to prevent anyone, by such monopoly, from controlling the price and sale thereof and from profiting thereon."

The complaint stated that when Waksman asked Schatz to join in signing the patent assignment to the Rutgers foundation 15 months later, Schatz at first refused to sign "without independent advice."

At that, the complaint alleged, Waksman represented to Schatz that "by virtue of the said defendant's power, position and influence in the field of microbiology and the world of science, as contrasted with the plaintiff's youth and inexperience, the said defendant would see to it that the plaintiff would fail to gain employment in the scientific and professional field" and that "no reputable institution" would employ him.

'No Patent'

The complaint alleged further that Waksman told Schatz that if he refused to sign, Waksman would have Schatz's name withdrawn from the application, that "there would be no patent at all" and that it was "essential for the welfare of both defendant and plaintiff and in the interest of the public that the assignment be executed."

Schatz, "being then in need of employment and having no business experience of any kind," signed, the complaint said.

The plaintiff said he "is informed and believes" that Waksman on similar representations procured his assignment of an application for a patent on streptomycin in Argentina. Applications also have been made in Canada and New Zealand but he has executed no assignment on those, the plaintiff stated.