Will Molecular Biology's Most Important Discovery In Years Be Ruined By Patents?

from the GNU-Emacs-for-DNA dept

Techdirt readers hardly need to be reminded that, far from promoting innovation, patents can shut it down, either directly, through legal action, or indirectly through the chill they cast on work in related areas. But not all patents are created equal. Some are so slight as to be irrelevant, while others have such a wide reach that they effectively control an entire domain. Patents on a new biological technique based on a mechanism found in nature, discussed in a long and fascinating piece in the Boston Review, definitely fall into the second category. Here’s the article’s explanation of the underlying mechanism, known as CRISPR-Cas:

Bacteria use CRISPR-Cas to attack the DNA of invading viruses. The workings of this natural defense mechanism were elucidated through basic research carried out mostly within universities. By hijacking and recombining its bacterial parts — a flexible kind of engineering that is the hallmark of molecular biology — researchers have shown how CRISPR-Cas can be used to edit the human genome, or any genome, in principle.

CRISPR-Cas can be thought of as the first really powerful and general-purpose genome editor — a GNU Emacs for DNA. It is widely expected that it will have a massive impact on molecular biology, both for pure research and in industrial applications. Given those very high stakes, it will not come as a surprise to learn that there is already a fierce tussle over who owns a key patent in this field:

A patent battle is raging between the University of California, Berkeley and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. MIT’s Technology Review has called the legal dispute a “winner-take-all match” with “billion-dollar implications,” as the contenders all have stakes in startup companies based on the technique. The Broad team was granted the first patent in 2014, but the Berkeley group filed paperwork contesting the decision.

As the Boston Review rightly points out, the Broad Institute patent is problematic for several reasons. It is very general, and lays claim to using CRISPR-Cas to edit all animal and plant DNA. The Broad Institute has granted an exclusive license for therapeutic applications, which means that the company concerned has a monopoly on what is expected to be one of the most important areas for CRISPR-Cas. Any other company wanting to use the technique, even for non-therapeutic work, must pay for a license. To top it all, it’s generally accepted that CRISPR-Cas is the result of a global, collaborative effort:

Academics around the globe, from Japan to Lithuania to Spain and the United States, have contributed to our understanding of CRISPR-Cas. No group can claim sole credit for discovering the system or the know-how for using it to edit genomes.

And yet the winner of the current patent battle, whether the Broad Institute, or the University of California, is likely to end up with immense power over the use of CRISPR-Cas. The article notes:

Monopolizing a core technology developed collectively using public funding ought to require an extraordinary argument. Even if we limit ourselves to looking through the economic lens, this would require making the case that a monopoly on CRISPR-Cas therapeutics would be so wildly effective — and wide enough in scope to tackle the huge range of diseases mentioned in the patent — that it would far outweigh competitive efforts with tens, or hundreds of other companies. In the current debate, no such argument has been given.

As well as giving many other details about this important case and its historical background, the Boston Review article goes on to suggest an alternative approach to one based on intellectual monopolies, one that builds on the fact that CRISPR-Cas is a tool for editing the biological software at the heart of all life:

We can take a leaf from the software world’s book and sketch a free biology (as in “free software”) that respects these responsibilities. This will require new mechanisms for describing research ownership and sharing that are in the public interest and that support the university?s research branch.

Although that may sound Utopian, for biology at least, it’s starting to happen:

Synthetic biology is already making steps in this direction, with projects such as BioBricks that provide a mechanism for scientists to contribute their work to a public registry and allow others to build on it.

Moreover, for those who think the idea of free biology will never really take off, it’s worth remembering people said the same about free software, which now powers most of the digital world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: cal, harvard, mit, university of california berkeley

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Will Molecular Biology's Most Important Discovery In Years Be Ruined By Patents?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

A problem that shouldn't exist

If multiple groups from around the world have been working on this, then the idea that anyone should get a patent on it is absurd. No one person or group did everything involved, start to finish, without outside influence, so no one group should be able to lock it down as though they were solely responsible for the discovery.

If they want credit for their individual contributions, fine, but this was clearly a group effort, so none of them should get the monopoly power over it.

musterion (profile) says:

Re: Utter marxist nonsense

Greedy People love monopoly whether its corrupt politicians, corrupt corporate presidents, oligarchs, you name it. “Real communism” doesn’t exist, never has existed, and will never exist. Consider the latest example of a country going down this path–Venezuela. How can a govenment supposedly for the people allow the late leader’s daughted amass a $4 billion fortune.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Money for lawyers, but not for scholarships

OF COURSE it’s there. šŸ˜‰ Jebus, you don’t think that I could let this thread (about a gratuitous argument) go by without starting a gratuitous argument? Where would we be then? Huh? HUH?!

Well, I suppose I could have said ed(1) — which still has its uses by the way and is still an essential part of every Unix admin’s toolkit.

david says:

Can't patent nature?

Isn’t there a concept that you can’t patent nature, and CRISPR-Cas is exactly that. Also, patents are supposed to be somewhat specific, so trying to patent all uses of CRISPR-Cas should also be prohibited.

Now, if someone comes up with a specific treatment of something using that, I’d have no problem with patenting a specific implementation of that. That’s like patenting ‘breathing’ and getting a license on anything that involves people taking gases into and out of their lungs.

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

A real question

I think someone should be asking another question: “Where does all this money go?”

I mean, suppose University of California wins this argument and truly makes billions on this technology: where would the money go? Shouldn’t the university be teaching students for free on that money?

Or are they spending the NCAA earnings and all their patent royalties on their solid platinum stadium? Bonuses for the president?

Anonymous Coward says:

First off, I am a US government employee in the DoD with several patents applied for. Therefore I know how the system works for government employees, and how I think the system should work for anyone who takes public money.

Anything we invent, we can patent. We usually do, in order to keep some of the unscrupulous companies we work with from coming in after us and patenting our work (it has happened, many times). As a condition of our employment, we must assign our patents to the US Government. Any company that is working for the US Government can freely use our patents without royalty for US Government applications. Anytime the tech is sold outside of the US Government (e.g. foreign military sales, commercial sales) we are paid a royalty for our patents.

I think that this sort of process should apply to any research paid for with public funds. The patents must be licensed, royalty free, for government funded (or perhaps non-government funded) research. Royalties would be awarded to those that developed the techniques (and hold the patents) for any commercial applications. This would enable the furthering of scientific research while protecting valuable techniques from unscrupulous businesses.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Ā»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...