|
There is a stereotype of scientists as individuals motivated
purely by the search for objective truth. In pursuit of these
truths they engage in think tanks and peer review, freely
publishing their findings to ensure a high standard of
objectivity in their own work. This free flow of information is
seen as a benefit to the field as a whole by enabling others in
the field to build on previous work.
Whether patents will limit the cooperation among researchers
apparently depends on the risks perceived by the patent owners.
A patent on a DNA sequence provides the owner with exclusionary
rights over the “tangible DNA molecules and constructs, but
does not prevent anyone from perceiving, using and analyzing
information about what the DNA sequence is.”[1] In theory,
the owner of a gene that has the potential to be useful in the
diagnosis or treatment of a disease should be willing to freely
share access to the gene. In doing so, the patent holder is in a
position to profit from this sharing. This could be strong
motivation for researchers to patent as many genes as possible
and to make access to these genes as easy as possible. In such a
system, we would expect genetic research to be both highly
competitive and open to the sharing of ideas and information.
There is some evidence that “…patent holders tend not to
enforce their rights against basic scientific uses…”[2] but
with more and more educational institutions applying for
patents, research by other organizations, even pure research,
might be seen as competition.
By contrast, individuals concerned with DNA sequencing will
often face risks greater than the benefits provided by the
exclusionary rights provided by a patent. As genetic sequences
are uncovered, they can often be used as starting points for
future discoveries. Having a patent on a sequence alone opens
the door for other researchers to “scoop” new patents on the
proteins a sequence might code for, or potential uses of the
sequence. In this arena, researchers would benefit from playing
their cards close to their chests in order to prevent such an
infringement. At least early in the process of genetic
sequencing, then, we can see how channels of communication
between researchers might shut down.
“University scientists who might otherwise be colleagues in
the scientific enterprise became business competitors jockeying
for commercial advantage. Moreover, there soon was a greater
willingness to suppress or distort research, several
peer-reviewed studies have shown. Scientists became less willing
to share critical research tools and bio-materials. Old habits
of openness and collegiality gave way to non-disclosure
agreements and material transfer licenses.” [3]
[1] From Eisenberg, Rebecca S. “How Can You Patent Genes?”
in Who Owns Life.
[2] From Wilson, Jack. “Patenting Organisms: Intellectual
Property Law Meets Biology.” in Who Owns Life.
[3] “Falling From Grace: Science and the Pursuit of Profit”
by Robert Lee Hotz |
