SirI do not understand why Richard Gold (June 14, p 2002) singled out the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in his defence of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), who have reportedly proceeded to patent the genome of the coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Specifically, the Commentary argued that the patent option would provide the two institutions “with more leverage in dealing with [HKU's] Versitech”. Gold further argued that CDC and BCCA would “use the patent system to serve the public good”.I wish to make clear that HKU is a research-led institution, committed to the public cause of higher education and benefiting society. Versitech is a technology transfer company, established in accordance with good practices of international universities to handle HKU's intellectual properties. Neither HKU nor Versitech are profit-seeking organisations, and they both hold the same view as CDC and BCCA—namely, to serve the public.HKU is committed to sharing its research results with society; locally, regionally, and internationally. We will continue to build up our research strength, but we cannot hope to share the benefits of our newly found knowledge if we do not properly manage our intellectual property rights.