Commentary

Nature Biotechnology 25, 721 (2007)
doi:10.1038/nbt0707-721a

The MTA—rip it up and start again?

Katharine Ku1 & James Henderson2

  1. Katharine Ku is in the Office of Technology Licensing, Stanford University, 1705 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California 94306-1106, USA e-mail: katharine.ku@stanford.edu
  2. James Henderson is in the Office of Technology Management, University of California at San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Suite 4603, San Francisco, California 94107, USA. e-mail: james.henderson@ucsf.edu

Securing material transfer agreements can be burdensome for academics and make downstream research prohibitively expensive, particularly for small startups with limited resources. Two technology-transfer professionals debate the pros and cons of such contracts.

The MTA|[mdash]|rip it up and start again?

iStockphoto/© PhekThong Lee

Are legal contracts that envelope the process of exchange of biology reagents and materials slowing experiments and stifling downstream research?

A material transfer agreement (MTA) is a contract allowing tangible research materials, such as cell lines, plasmids or reagents, to be transferred between research institutions. At its core, an MTA is a simple agreement that contractually defines who is making available (the provider) and who is obtaining (the recipient) the materials, what the materials are, what can be done with them and what obligations the provider and recipient each take on.

As more and more research findings come under the sway of these agreements, concern is growing that they are slowing the pace of research, discouraging researchers from working in particular areas and constraining the freedom of enterprises to operate. Here, two technology-licensing veterans present arguments for and against the overhaul of the MTA model.

Point: MTAs are the bane of our existence!

Counterpoint: MTAs are a practical necessity

Extra navigation

Search PubMed for

naturejobs

More science jobs
Post a job for free

natureproducts


ADVERTISEMENT