captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. there were new signs of an economic recovery today with the largest increase in new jobs in three years. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, judy woodruff looks at the numbers with economists laura tyson and glenn hubbard. >> lehrer: and paul solman reports on getting and paying jobless benefits in florida. >> my benefits are on hold until they can get confirmation from the employer which could take three to six weeks.

i said look, you know, i have a family, this is a family of five. how is it that we have to wait this long for these benefits. >> brown: then, a debate about who should own the rights to gene research. >> lehrer: and the analysis of mark shields and david brooks. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour is provided by:

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: the u.s. economy showed new life in numbers today from the labor department. employers, public and private, added more than 160,000 new jobs. judy woodruff has the story. >> woodruff: by any measure, more americans were working last month. private employers added 123,000 jobs, and temporary hires for the u.s. census added another 48,000. economists had predicted a net gain of 190,000 jobs. the actual increase was less, but it was still the best since may of 2007. the unemployment rate held

steady at 9.7%, even as the economy has now added jobs in three of the past five months. in charlotte, north carolina, president obama highlighted the jobs report at a high-tech battery plant that received a stimulus grant. he said the economy is "beginning to turn the corner." >> i've often had to report bad news during the course of this year, as the recession wreaked havoc on people's lives. but today is an encouraging day. we learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs, instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. ( applause ) >> woodruff: still, 15 million americans remain out of work, and more than 40% of those have been out for six months or longer, a record. white house chief economist christina romer acknowledged

today the labor market is still "severely distressed". but john boehner, the republican minority leader in the u.s. house, charged the president's policies are making things worse. he said, "a near 10% unemployment rate is completely unacceptable, and no amount of taxpayer-funded temporary census workers can mask the pummeling america's employers are taking from washington democrats' job- killing agenda." but there've also been signs of hope this week in reports that consumers are spending more, and that manufacturing grew in march at its fastest pace in five years. with to help us take a look at the new report and what it tells us about the larger economic picture we turn to glenn hubbard, dean of the business school at columbia university. he was chairman of the council of economic advisors for president george w. bush. and laura tyson, professor

of economics at the hosk school of business at the university of california berkeley. she was chair of president clinton's council of economic advisors, and is now a member of president obama's economic advisory board. thank you both for being with us. and laura tyson, i'll turn to you first. how do you read this >> well, i read it as encouraging. but encouraging and moderate. it's encouraging because we have pri employment growth. and actually the revisions to this report for january and february say that the economy on average has produced about 54,000 jobs a month for the first quarter of this year. think about how encouraging that is when you look at what was happening just a year ago in the first quarter when the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month. so we have clearly dramatically turned a corner. but i would use the word modest here because we have a number of special factors in this report, the 48,000 census workers, the fact

that the march numbers look stronger because of february numbers were weaker, because of bad weather. and then finally i would just say that the standard here is how many jobs a month do we need simply to absorb the increase in the labor force and bring the unemployment rate down. that's got to start averaging about 100 to 150,000 jobs a month to really bring the unemployment rate down sedly -- steadily. and that's why most forecasts this crer have an elevated unemployment rate daying in the 9.3 to 9.8 raj. so encouraging, modest. we still have a very long way to go. >> woodruff: encouraging, modest. glen hubbard, how do you see, what do you see when you look inside these numbers? >> well, i would agree with that. i think if you strip aside the special weather factors, it was probably private sector job growth on the order of $75,000. the recession is almost surely over. i think the employment reports will continue to show job creation. but laura is absolutely

right. you have to create 100 to 150,000 jobs a month to stay even. so the unemployment rate will stay high for the balance of this year. >> glen hubbard, take us inside the numbers. i mean what is encouraging, what is not so encouraging whether it is manufacturing, the service sector. >> well, i think this report is broadly encouraging because we are seeing a turn around in private sector employment. that is something i think many economists have been looking for for the past few months as a key indicator of the recession being over. having said that, gdp growth is doing much better than the economy's job growth. and so unless gdp growth picks up a great deal this will be a pretty modest year in the labor market. positive but modest. >> woodruff: laura tyson, how do you see that connection, growth employment, what do you see as the broader signs out there that could make a difference in employment as we move further into this year?

>> well, i want to say we need to understand again the hill we're climbing or the mountain we're climbing here. so since december of 2007 the economy has lost 8.4 million jobs. if you add the reduction in hours that's occurred, that's mostly been involuntary, you got another 3 million missing jobs. so that a magnitude of the problem. i want to also say that economists were shocked, really surprised, in 2009 at how dramatic the job losses were. because they were much more dramatic than the decline in output would have suggested. so we're dealing with an economy without the dedecline, employment falls more, apparently and then we know from the previous recoverys from recessions, to the as deep a recession as this one, that employment growth tends to lag gdp growth so even the really strong economic forecasts for this year, i take macroeconomic advisors, forecasts, or morgan stanley forecasts which calling for growth in 39.3 to 3.5% range, they do not see the

unemployment rate coming very far down. they see it trending down, maybe, to maybe a low of 9.3, 9.4. but this delinking of the employment growth from the outpoint growth is something that's very disturbing. and that's why the focus really needs to be on what can we do to generate jobs. >> glenn hubbard, how do you explain that discrepancy between the two, between the growth and the number of jobs being created. >> well, the underlying productivity and growth in the economy remains strong during the downturn and it is still strong now. which means we have to have very high headline gdp growth. typically in a severe recession, a first year bounceback is on the order of 6%. while the numbers referred to and i agree with her and say the low to mid 3s are possible, those are nowhere near 6% so we're just not going to see that kind of a snapback. >> and what is the reason?

>> well, this economy, this recession was very different than a typical postwar recession. when you have balance sheet destruction of this level, it takes time to work through that. we have seen a recovery in financial markets. it's very welcome but consumers still have a way to go in recovering. and i think this recovery will be more modest in gdp growth and hence in jobs than we've seen. 2010 will be a pretty good year in gdp growth. the real issue for gdp growth and employment is 2011. >> woodruff: laura tyson, do you see that the same way, that it's going to-- we're going to have to wait until next year before we see some movement here? >> well, i worried about the second half of this year to some extent. i mean i really, i agree completely with what glenn has just said, this is not a strong v-shaped dramatic recovery. and that's because it's a very particular kind of recession.

i am very worried about the consumption sector. two-thirds of aggregate demand in the united states is consumption and think about the household. even this report actually had, it had an increase in hours which is great news. it actually had a small and unemployment-- unexpected decline in average hourly wages. average hourly wages are growing over the whole quarter but at a very slow rate. now you have a consumer that's lost money, substantial amount of wealth in their house. you have 20% of households around that number with underwater mortgages. you have a lot of household debt and you're going to have slow income growth. two-thirds of demand comes from consumption. that engine for the u.s. economy is not going to be the robust engine it was before. now the second half of the year, the things that worry me, housing. the fact that the stimulus is now pulling back. and basically the issue of consumer confidence is income-- if unemployment

doesn't fall and house hold income doesn't rise. >> woodruff: glenn hubbard so, what are the other factors out there that you are looking at for clues of where this economy is headed. >> well, again, high frequency news about the labor market when we look at unemployment insurance claims, week-to-week, those are getting better but still clarely in danger territory. making sure the financial market health remains as strong as it has been. my worry going forward is much what laura mentioned, we're removing substantial stimulus from an economies that's just lifting off. so the lift off is going to be delicate. next year as well we're talking about tax increases that could dampen both consumption and investment and under the real worry. >> woodruff: well a lot to chew over here. and you both, we appreciate your taking us into the future beyond looking at just this month's numbers. glen hubbard, lawa tyson, thank you both. >> thanks, judy. >> pleasure. >> brown: now, the other news of

the day. here's kwame holman in our newsroom. >> holman: the vatican faced new criticism on this good friday in the storm of accusations the pope helped cover up the clergy sex abuse scandal. it began with remarks by the pontiff's personal minister. in his good friday sermon, the reverend raneiro cantalamessa compared accusations against the pope to "collective violence" visited upon the jews. he spoke with pope benedict xvi seated close by. >> ( translated ): i have received in these days a letter from a jewish friend, and with his permission, i will share with you part of it. he wrote, "i am following with disgust the violent and concentric attack against the church, the pope and all the faithful from the whole world. the use of stereotype, the transferring of the responsibility and personal fault to the collective one, remind me of the most shameful aspects of anti-semitism." >> holman: the response was immediate. the head of germany's central council of jews called the statement "repulsive" and

"obscene," and the head of an abuse victims group in the u.s. said: "they're experiencing a little discomfort, and they're going to compare themselves to being rounded up or lined up and sent in cattle cars to auschwitz? you cannot be serious." in short order, the vatican issued a statement saying father cantalamessa's remarks were not the official position of the church. the pope faces claims that, as an archbishop in germany, he covered up the actions of a sexually abusive priest during the 1970s. the vatican has forcefully denied that and other accusations. and on wednesday, a top vatican official, cardinal william levada, posted a lengthy defense online and attacked "the new york times," which has broken several of the recent stories. but another american theologian, father richard mcbrien of notre dame, said the pope must answer the allegations. >> this controversy will not be put to rest until the pope himself gives the answer to the question, the famous question

that senator howard baker asked in the watergate hearings many years ago: "what did he know, and when did he know it?" and a third question-- "and what did he do about it?" >> holman: and in germany today, archbishop robert zollitsch, who heads that country's roman catholic bishops, complained of a "wrongly intended desire to protect the church's reputation." for his part, the 82-year-old pontiff, who appeared at today's good friday observances, did not address any issues relating to the sexual abuse allegations. afghan president hamid karzai moved today to calm a dispute with washington. yesterday, he charged western nations engineered "vast fraud" in last year's afghan election. today, he spoke with secretary of state hillary clinton by phone and told her the speech had been misunderstood. meantime, karzai's main political rival, abdullah abdullah, charged the afghan leader had tried to shift the focus from internal corruption.

>> he thinks by give thaling message he has taken a populist stand, anti-foreigner. the people of afghanistan may be -- there might be wide spread illiteracy, povertyy in many, many areas. at the same time, to underestimate their awareness is a fatal mistake. >> holman: also today, three german soldiers were killed in a clash with taliban fighters in the north. more than 4,000 german troops are serving in afghanistan. in pakistan, the attorney general resigned today. he said the government has blocked him from investigating president asif ali zardari on charges of graft. and the pakistani parliament began work on a constitutional change to strip the president of the power to fire an elected government. in northern china, rescuers detected the first signs of life from inside a flooded coal mine. 153 miners have been trapped there since sunday.

today, state television showed footage of rescuers banging on pipes, hoping to reach the miners, and then, celebrating when they heard tapping sounds. >> we received some very exciting news. right at the point we drilled through into the area where we sent water, milk and food into the mine, we knocked the pipe and we heard a noise back which demonstrates that signs of life could exist from the more than 100 miners trapped in the mine. >> holman: family members of some miners say there are many more miners trapped than the chinese government has acknowledged. air passengers traveling to the u.s. will face revised security. the department of homeland security said today people will be targeted for additional screening based on specific threat information. currently, anyone from 14 mainly muslim countries, or traveling through those countries, automatically faces extra checks. that policy took effect after the failed attempt to blow up an airliner over detroit last christmas.

the f.b.i. warned today about letters to more than 30 u.s. governors, demanding they resign or face being removed. the bureau said the letters by an anti-government group could provoke violence. the web site of the guardians of the free republics said they want to restore america by peaceful means. actor john forsythe died late thursday of cancer at his home in southern california. he was best known for two major television roles over his long career. for eight years in the 1980s, he starred in "dynasty", as oil tycoon blake carrington. before that, he was the unseen boss of "charlie's angels", a group of three female detectives. john forsythe was 92 years old. those are some of the day's main stories. i'll be back at the end of the program with a preview of what you'll find tonight on the newshour's web site. for now, back to jim. >> lehrer: still to come on the newshour: patents for genes; plus shields and brooks. but first, another take on unemployment.

it's about benefits, and comes from florida, where the jobless rate is the sixth highest in the nation. newshour economics correspondent paul solman reports, part of his continuing reporting on "making sense" of the economy. >> reporter: the public face of orlando, florida-- family fun in fantasyland. in reality, however, orlando is a good deal glummer. >> walt disney is not out there with pixie dust to fix this economy. >> reporter: orlando has a 12.5% unemployment rate, highest since world war ii, in a state still stunned by the great recession. >> no experience is needed. we provide the leads for you, your transportation... >> reporter: at a job fair last week, besides the usual commission-only sales gigs a military recruiters, the pickings were slim.

fortunately for the long-term jobless, federal extensions of unemployment insurance have added up to a year of benefits beyond the basic six months provided by the states. not so fortunately, unemployment insurance isn't proving to be much insurance at all, especially not here in florida. mark mora lost his banking job and applied for benefits on february 27. >> i went online, did everything i was supposed to, and that's when they told me that my benefits were on hold until they get confirmation from the employer, which could take three to six weeks. i said, "look, i have a family. we're a family of five. how is it that we have to wait this long for these benefits?" >> reporter: ada mora had lost her software job in 2008. with mark's benefits on hold, hers were expiring. >> i can't sleep at night, i can't, thinking about where were going to go. it's heartbreaking, it's very, very heartbreaking. i never knew that it was going to happen to us. >> reporter: and the moras are the lucky ones. the day after our visit, mark

got his first benefit check. but why the delay? >> you're actually... you're roughly about $500 short in order for you to receive your regular benefits. >> reporter: for one thing, like most states, it's been overwhelmed by the surge in jobless claims, which more than doubled in the past year. the state's unemployment insurance trust fund went broke in august, and has been borrowing from the federal government ever since. also, in the good times, florida under-invested. its unemployment insurance operation runs on the computer installed when richard nixon was in office. the state agency's robby cunningham. >> our mainframe system is a 1970s-era system, and it's working very hard to keep up with the demand. >> reporter: perhaps, says journalist jim stratton, but there are three major federal performance standards for processing claims. florida is now near the bottom third in each of those measures. it's not paying enough of the claims within the federal time

window, it's not processing appeals quickly enough to satisfy the federal standard, and it's not making the eligibility determinations quickly. >> hey, shari, how are you? >> reporter: the state says it's responding. >> we've increased our phone lines, we've increased our staff, we've increased our hours. we're, in fact, also in the process of replacing our mainframe system, so that will actually add another level to customer service when that comes online, probably in 2013. >> reporter: 2013-- probably. right now, florida's unemployment benefits are fifth lowest in the country, tied with tennessee. in massachusetts, you can get up to $628 a week; the max in florida-- $275. but many people don't even get that much. shannan tucker lost her secretarial job in 2008. based on salary, she got $266 a week in unemployment. then, she took a part-time library job at $11 an hour.

the state reduced her benefit accordingly. >> and i'm still making the same as i would have on unemployment. >> reporter: then, she got laid off again. >> what happened was when her new benefit year came up, she reapplied for benefits, and they recalculated her benefits and included the part-time work that she had done in the benefit calculation. when that happened, she got only $157 a week, instead of the $266 that she would have gotten had she just stayed at home and not worked during that time. >> i'm like, "how can this be? i'm penalized, because i'm getting a lower amount for working and taking the initiative and everything, and im getting penalized, and i feel that is so unfair." >> reporter: but that's the law, in all 50 states. >> because i cannot survive on $157 a week. >> reporter: but here's an amazing fact-- more than a third of eligible americans don't get

any unemployment insurance at all. economist raj chetty. >> the fraction of people who are eligible for unemployment benefits and actually receive them varies significantly across states, and is only about 65% or 60% on average in the u.s. now, that's particularly striking when you compare it to the numbers in europe, where that number is more like 95% or 97%. >> reporter: 95% to 97% of people in europe take unemployment insurance; only 60% to 65% here in the states? >> yes. the rules are arcane and complex. what should you be doing if you lose your job, looking for another job and trying to manage, right? not figuring out the unemployment insurance system rules. >> reporter: as for florida, almost half of the eligible unemployed are getting no insurance payments, though employers are required to have paid their premiums in full. in fact, that may be part of the problem-- it pays for a company to challenge a worker's claim.

>> when you lay off lots of workers, you have to pay higher unemployment taxes. employers have an incentive to contest an individual's unemployment benefit claims because they are paying part of the cost of those unemployment benefit claims. and how would you do that? you try to claim that you fired the person for cause rather than laid the person off, or the person quit. >> objection, objection. >> reporter: lawyer laura pichardo on a telephone hearing with an employer disputing a claim filed by a cashier, fired in september for supposedly stealing a customer's cash. >> and right there gives the claimant $40 and two cents, right there. but there's no evidence here that that money went anywhere except somewhere on the register. >> reporter: the cashier denied stealing and the police backed her up, so the state approved the woman's claim. but it's gone unpaid for six months while the employer fights on.

this is its third appeal of a finding for the cashier. >> she's out of a job-- that's slap number one. now, she cant even get her benefits. she is fortunate that she has family close by that she relies on. but if it wasn't for that, she would probably be homeless. >> reporter: sometimes, when the employer doesn't challenge a claim, the state does. dave zabukovec was laid off from his job as a graphic artist in 2008 and filed a claim after taking a week-long real estate class. he reported that he had not looked for work that one week. the state informed him by mail that he was eligible for the maximum benefit, but no checks ever came. why not? he was told he'd been disqualified, but he never noticed the letter that was sent informing him of the news. so, he asked for a hearing to explain what had happened. the man from the state's response? >> "did you receive the letter?" and that's all he wanted to know. and that's it. i answered his question in the

way he wanted me to answer it and then the case was closed. decision made. >> reporter: not a penny for dave zabukovec to help support his stay-at-home wife and two young daughters, though his employer had paid into the insurance system on his behalf for years. unable to find work, he exhausted his savings. >> basically spending all that i had saved up, my life savings, to pay the bills and i took loans against some of my iras. i took a $10,000 loan off one of those that i'm paying back presently. two credit cards that i maxed, and then some family help from time to time when i absolutely needed it. >> reporter: zabukovec has found jobs, three of them: at a sign shop during the day, stocking supermarket shelves at night, trying to sell real estate on the weekend. he's back up to making half what he used to. >> i'm trying to reduce my anxiety and just do what i can for my family.

if i can keep a roof over their heads and keep their bellies full, then i'm doing something. i'm hoping and praying that its going to be better. >> reporter: as are many of the 1.1 million floridians still unemployed. >> brown: now to a potentially far-reaching case involving science, medicine and law. a major goal of modern health science has been to identify the links between our genes and disease-- to assess risks and to find treatments and cures. over the past two decades, university researchers and a multi-billion dollar biotech industry have expanded the study of the human genome and developed a working blueprint of human d.n.a. that includes hereditary information stored on 23 pairs of chromosomes wrapped as double-helixes. companies have also filed patents on particular genes and

the research connected with them-- roughly 40,000 patents are now held on about 20% of all human genes. among those are patents owned by myriad genetics, a company based in salt lake city, for genes known as brca 1 and brca 2, the genes whose mutations have been linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. myriad sells a test, costing more than $3,000, that helps assess a woman's risk for cancer. but a group of individuals and organizations challenged those patents in a lawsuit, arguing that, under the law, a so-called "product of nature" cannot be patented. this week, a federal judge agreed with the plaintiffs in a ruling that could have a broad impact on future genetic research. here to discuss the case are daniel ravicher, executive director of the public patent foundation at the benjamin cardozo school of law. the foundation was one of the plaintiffs in the case against myriad genetics; and ken shahine, a patent attorney and visiting professor

of law at the university of utah. he's a former c.e.o. of a biotech company, and filed an amicus brief on behalf of myriad. he joins us from houston. daniel ravicher, start with you. explain more about what these patents are and what you see the problem with them. >> well, the patent is the government granting one company the exclusive right to make or use a certain technology. and in this case the patent office has been granting patents over many genes in our body. and so the result means that if you want to look at your own genes to see whether you have a particular mutation that would increase your predisposition to a certain disease, you can't do that without the permission of the company. in this case we sued myriad genetics because they were using their patents to foreclose any other lab from offering this genetic screen, or were allowing women who couldn't afford to pay myriad's price to go to someone who might be willing to do that screening for them for free. >> ken shahine, from the company's standpoint, some process has happened that

makes the gene, makes this all patentable; is that correct? >> yeah, i think so. first of all, we need to be clear that no one actually owns your genes or has patented your genes. and when you isolate a gene, it really is-- has been transformed into something different. and we know that intuitively because now that a gene has been isolated in this particular case, you can tell a woman years if not decades before she has any signs or symptoms whether she is going to develop breast cancer. and i think that's exactly the type of inventions that the patent system is designed to encourage. and i think it's doing a good job. and i'm concerned that suits like this could actually sometimey that process. >> daniel ravicher, this idea of owning a gene, do we agree on that, i mean cause that's a hard concept for people to grasp. >> we actually disagree. because in effect, what these patents are, you want to isolate your gene and that is a required part of the patent. but to isolate your gene simply means you go to a doctor and they withdraw

your blood and they want to look at your gene and see if you have a mutation. so the judge agreed with us this week that isolating genes from your body is no different than looking at the gene inside your body. and in fact, the whole purpose of why isolating your gene is worthwhile is because it is exactly the same as the gene inside your body. if when you isolate the genes they were different and you saw a mutation in that isolated gene, that wouldn't tell you anything about your own body it is only useful because it is exactly the same and that is what we argued and what the judge agreed with. >> so ken shahine, is this a distinction of definition, of science what is going on here in not agreeing even on that? >> well, i think it is a little tricky. and again, i would say that when you isolated dna molecule t has transformed. again as i said earlier, you know that because you can do something with that piece of dna that you couldn't do with that same piece of dna when it's in someone's body. so to me that really crosses a threshold of being eligible for patent protection. and again the type of inventions that we want to

encourage that is a very important part of it. so perhaps we don't agree on that point but it is an important one to discuss. >> well, but explain, continue on that thought. why are these patents so important to companies. >> the reason they're important to companies is that when you have a very basic idea that comes out of university, which i think is absolutely critical, translating that basic research into a useful clinical diagnostic as in this case myriad againit againity-- genetics has done, requires investment. and when are you siting across from a venture capitalist who wants to invest 10 or 20 million into a company they want some insurance that there is exclusivity to get some return on investment for that money. so i think that is where it is an issue where it is important. >> did you have to face that yourself? >> i certainly have. and i think there's no question that in any serious discussion with an investor, they will at some point ask

what the intellectual property protection is for the product. and vehiclely-- frequently if you don't have that, that could be a point where you are not going to get funding. >> what is the response to that. >> ken raises a very important issues. we do have to make sure we have a patent system that promotes progress per the constitution. but the supreme court has said that patents can have both an incentivizing and chilling effect. and the line between those patents that we want, having that incentivizing effect as well as between those that we don't want is whether or not the patent covers a natural phenomenon or law of nature. what the supreme court has said is the patent has to cover something that is markedly different from what exists in nature. and we argue to the court and the court agreed with us that simp leigh removing genes from your body and looking at them is not marginally different from nature. >> but the issue that i think he brought up is the squelching of innovation argument for companies, that if they've done the work and they get the patent-- if they don't have the patent, why would they go ahead with the research. >> well, we are not challenging any patents on

new drugs, new treatments, no ways of finding genes or anything like that. we believe those kinds of patents should exist and are good for society. but we agree with the supreme court that patents on things that exist in nature, simply because i'm taking gold out of a stream, washed off the dirt and made it shiny doesn't mean that i deserve a patent on gold. i have to do something meaningful with it to make it a new invention, not just something i discovered in nature. >> ken shahine this is one case and it is one judge. i gather that everyone is pretty sure that there will be an appeal here. but what are the larger stakes, either i mean both now and if this is you know -- upheld down the line. >> well, certainly it will be appealed batt through the federal circuit and i think ultimately the supreme court this is definitely a landmark case and i think that the industry needs some clarity from the courts as to whether these inventions are going to be patentable in the long run. i guess my long-term concern is really that this is the future of medicine.

i think that the division is to pre-- to determine whether someone is predisposed earlier before they are sick and try to prevent that. and anything that is going to deter from that to me is very concerning. and i hope that this ruling doesn't do that. >> you would agree , mr. ravicher, that this is the long-term future of medicine, right? >> i agree with ken competely, that the future of medicine is personalized, not one side fits all that we have now. when you go to your doctor they will screen your gene and know exactly what medicines are best for you and which would be harmful to you. they can provide a custom tailored diagnosis. if we allow patents on genes and there are 25,000 genes in every human cell if we allow patents on that there will be a toll booth set up on every inch of our genetic ked and we will never realize the promise of personalized medicine. >> will the research go on, though f there are not those patents? >> the funny thing is all the major research in the field of genetics and these genes in particular was done by university researchers who did not want to get

patents in a way to exclude others. most gene patents aren't being asserted in a way harmful to the public because they are being widely licensed and competitors are allowed to do their own screening. women like my climate, a poor single mother from massachusetts who wants to know whether or not she is likely to get ovarian cancer can't afford the test. she wants to go to my client who is willing to do the test for free. myriad won't let that happen. most gene patent holders are more reasonable. we chose myriad as a defendant in this case because they are being unreasonable in their assertion of these patents. >> and mr. shahine, briefly, your argument is that the research might be stymied from this. >> , and it's not some of the basic research, because i do agree that basic research needs to continue. and i don't think that there is really a strong observance or enforcement of the patents. it's that translation t really is that translation from that basic research or commercialization that i fear could be stymied by these actions. >> all right, ken shahine and daniel ravicher, thank

you both very much. >> thanks. >> thank you so much. >> lehrer: and finally tonight, the analysis of shields and brooks-- syndicated columnist mark shields, "new york times" columnist david brooks. mark, today's good news on jobs, how good is it? >> it's good, jim, it's better. i would just remind the great maxim of politics, when the economy is bad, the economy is the only issue. and you don't go into an election at 9.7% unemployment and don't think that are you not going to be held liable for it. i think -- . >> lehrer: as long as it stays that way. >> well, an average 54,000 new jobs every month this quarter. they lost an average of 753,000 jobs every month first quarter of 2009. but it's a long way down to-- from 9.7 down to a

tolerable level politically. the democrats are still very much on the defensive. barney frank, democratic chairman, the house banking committee said no democrat can really run on the slogan that things would have sucked worse if i hadn't been here. i think that's the problem the democrats have. >> we would have gone over the abyss, the precipice if we hadn't done what we had doneful okay, don't tell people out of work that things are better. >> i agree, maybe not quite in that language. you know, economically, it's good news. and psychologically i think for the country to get any good news is just feels good. but politically, i don't think it's going to make much of a difference this year. you got to remember the context is this torrent of distrust and hatred may not be too strong a word toward washington and incumbents. and so is anything going to happen this year that going to reverse that wind? i don't really think so. the unemployment rate is 9.7. the government projections

are it will go up to 9.8 as more people enter the labor force. you have employers upping the productivity of their workers, making them even slower to hire. so the prospect is still for a long period of high unemployment and just another year at least, if not more, 8% unemployment for two years. so this is going to be a long, terrible political period. >> so you agree with mark that unemployment really does or the economy really does control the politics like it or not. >> i actually halfway agree. this is something you hear from the white house. well, it's all unemployment it is 100% unemployment. and i would say it is 50% unemployment. that's clearly a main reason why people are very up set. but if you look at the polling it doesn't explain everything. it doesn't explain why when ask you people on issue after issue which party you trust republicans or democrats, the democrats have lost their advantage on the economy on health care, and a whole bunch of issues there has been this huge shift on what they call the generic bat ol, the republicans are up so i don't think it's simply the

economy. i think it's also the sense of nancy pelosi, obama is more liberal than we thought he was. so i think it's half unemployment, half distrust of the expansion of government. >> i disagree with david's numbers. i agree there is a poll that says that. but most polls still show democrats with an advantage but a shrinking advantage. i think the economy is a bigger issue. when the economy is good, jim, you can argue about things like whether we ought to have pledge allegiance to the flag or, you know, whether jennifer nowers matters or whatever else. but when the economy is bad that is really, it dominates everything politically. and i think that-- the longer it goes in 2010, the more it's going to be owned by president obama. i mean they still blame president bush and he still is held primarily responsible but each month that's declining and he's going to own the economy by the fall of 2010. >> speaking of president obama what did you think of

his decision on oil & gas drilling offshore. >> i thought it was pretty balanced. you look at the reaction, a lot of environmentalists were up set. some were not. a lot of oil manufacturers were pleased. some were not. i think if you look at the overall obama energy policy you look at the gesture on nuclear energy, this gesture, none of this going to happen any time soon. but you see balance. you see him trying to get some really being aggressive on clean technologies. but also allowing some of the current technologies. there has been this tend ansi, i think with the democratic party to fall in love with the next energy technology and not really want to use the ones we have right now. but obama has been balanced for the innovation, for the current policy. you know, i'm not sure how substantive it is because we are to the going get drilling or nuclear power any time soon but i think politically it looks like he's trying everything. which seems to me a sensible approach. >> this up set a lot of democrats, has it not, mark. they wanted him to go the enviro route completely. >> he had come out for

offshore drilling during the campaign when he was running against john mccain and sarah palin who were two of the most enthusiastic drillers. >> drill, baby, drill. >> since the american dental association. there was heavy symbolism, i thought, on the obama policy that when you get barbara boxer, senator from california, chairman of the senate environment committee endorsing his position because of it exempted california, oregon and washington from drilling. >> oh, mark, you're not suggesting what i think are you suggesting. >> no, i wouldn't suggest that, since she is up for re-election this year, and you get the embrace of bob mcdonald, the newically elected republican governor of virginia for tidelands drilling off virginia. >> he is in favor of, and there is florida, you get republicans in georgia in favor of it. so it is-- it's intriguing to watch the american petroleum institute and barbara boxer, the american petroleum institute endorse the president's position.

so it is, i think it is intended at least in part to build political support so that the president's energy bill which makes sense so that are you not in that position you were on health care where it's all what every republican is opposed completely. >> lehrer: shocked that politics had something to do with it. >> the virginians are happy, the new jersians are not happy because they are afraid the effects will hit their waterfront. so a lot of it is political. but for an administration that has lost independence, it's a sign we not just captive to democratic groups. and by the way i have a lot of arguments with my conservative colleagues on how liberal obama is and i could point to this. coy point to afghanistan. i could point to his really being aggressive attacks or criticism of the teacher unions. i think there is a series of gestures where he has proven himself not to be a down the line liberal by any means and this is one of them. >> lehrer: do agree with that? >> it is, it is, joe lawrence who writes the politics daily went through a litany of issues including abortion rights, for example,

where he endorsed an executive order, essentially, that-- . >> lehrer: for the health-care bill. >> to get the health-care bill through. david points out the teachers unions, opposing the public option in the health-care bill, willing to tax health-care plans so labor union members, not pushing card check, i mean there is a number of places where you make the case that this is a one world socialist left winger, it's awfully hard. too many exceptions. >> lehrer: david, you mentioned afghanistan. what do you make of this. what has karzai up to. >> we have an insufferable ally in the world, i don't know about him. the americans are dying to give-- give that country a chance at civil and order. and he continues to may one card after another, essentially blaming americans for all the problems. not really doing anything encore ruption, of significance. and sort of telling a story line that the americans are out to take over his country when, you know, he is president because of the stability provided by the

united states and by the western allies. and so he is just been insufferable. and so we're there. we can't get out. we can't say oh, because we don't like karzai we're leaving. but the idea and i'm very glad obama went over there, he gave a brilliant speech to the troops. >> lehrer: that was a good speech, wasn't it. >> it was just really tremendously good. and but the idea that you can talk to karzai into being what we hope him to be is just not going to what. so we better have some work arounds. >> lehrer: work arounds? >> well, yeah. it was interesting that the president was there unexpected, una employe employed-- announced so that karzai could not get the political pluses of having ceremonial photo opportunities. he was in and out. he gave him the stern dutch uncle lecture. and that was the purpose of the visit other than the troops as david pointed out. and you know, we're seeing with general jones on the show last night with you and from other reports.

without a functioning, honest responsive government on the ground, all the military efforts in the world, on the part of the afghans, all the military efforts in the world and sacrifice by americans mean nothing if there is nothing there to take its place. >> lehrer: what do you think he doesn't get about this, about that? that i mean he is not going to exist if he doesn't get his act together because america could eventually get tired of this, we could leave, collapse, you know, all kinds of -- >> i will say three words that really hurt from me. i don't know what he is thinking. the man remains a mystery to meechl he is a fashion plate and beyond that he is just an enigma to me. i cannot understand where he sees his self-interest here. >> what did he do just before bama went over there. he went and had ahmadinejad over there. so he may have some belief. >> lehrer: the heads of iran. >> all politics is local. i don't know what the politics of the place are.

he has clearly decided there is hostility by the u.s. troops towards casuals inflicted by u.s. troops an will ride that and he is riding it quite strongly. and this is a-- he gets money from stealing and we are trying to-- at least his brother probably does. we're trying to crack down on that. >> lehrer: yeah. i know is a complicated subject. but what is your reaction to how the vatican has handleding the attacks on pope, particularly kwame reported in the news summary, today's statement by the pope's minister and comparing what is happening to the pope and the vatican to what what-- anti-sellityism. >> i -- anti-semitism. >> i say this as a practicing catholic, i think that the church has handled the child abuse scandal from the very beginning in the worst possible manner. that the first inclination seemed to be to protect the priests. and then to protect the

bishops who were protecting the priests. and there seem to be minimal concern in too many instances for the child, especially the most vulnerable, and the least powerful. and in some cases handicap children who were abused. other people who are delighting in seeing the church embarrassed and humiliated and exposed, sure. but that is not-- the facts are the facts. that was the first charge that was leveled against the "boston globe" when they revealed the stories about cardinal law, that this was part of an anti-catholic, maybe there was a concern, but the facts stand for themselves. >> lehrer: what about the anti--semitism. >> well, as a semi practicing jew, the comparison of a child molestation scandal and victims of the holocaust is an offensive comparison. and i think jews and most people are offended by that comparison.

and i think about what it speaks to is an insolarity in the response and tone deafness of the response. at least a small group of people that are making statements, and this is not reflective of church policy, but who are making statements who have been inside the corridors of a world, and i have difficulty perceiving how things are understood and interpreted outside. >> the archbishop of dublin, archbishop martin made a compelling statement exowing-- really taking great issue with the vatican and its handling of this whole crisis and scandal. >> lehrer: as a semi practicing protestant who is going to win the final four. >> it will be a game between the west virginia mountaineers and butler bull dogs, the two underdogs. i'm sorry for duke. my daughter's alma mater. wonderful school where everybody has his own tennis coach and private orthodontist and a sports car, but this is blue collar america.

>> judy woodruff and i have ties to duke. there is a lot of hostility, unfair aspersions cast at duke but duke will win it in the end. porsches, mercedes, whatever it takes. >> lehrer: amen, and thank you all very much. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: the u.s. economy added 162,000 jobs in march, and the unemployment rate held at 9.7%. the pope's personal minister compared accusations of a sexual abuse cover-up to violence against jews. later, the vatican said that was not the official position of the church. and afghan president hamid karzai spoke to secretary of state clinton by phone. an aide said karzai was misunderstood yesterday when he blamed election fraud on foreigners. the newshour is always online. kwame holman, in our newsroom, previews what's there. kwame. >> holman: mark and david continue their conversation. then, it's not just florida having trouble paying jobless benefits. we talked to a reporter from pro

publica about other states' stretched for funds. a look at the shifting political situation in sudan, as the country prepares for its first multi-party elections in 24 years. and on "art beat," a conversation with actor alfred molina about playing artist mark rothko on broadway, and a scene from the play "red." all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> lehrer: and again to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, are eight more.

>> brown: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs

newshour has been provided by:

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org