Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The rise of the ethical license

Nature Biotechnology volume 35, pages 22–24 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

The Broad Institute's recent licensing of its gene editing patent portfolio demonstrates how licenses can be used to restrict controversial applications of emerging technologies while society deliberates their implications.

CRISPR (bacterial clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats) is a gene editing tool that can disable, replace, or insert specific nucleotides in a genome, and the Broad owns what are considered to be the foundational patents on this technology1. Although the University of California has launched a vigorous challenge to the Broad's patent rights2, since 2014 the Broad has been offering licenses to its CRISPR patent portfolio for research and commercial purposes. A number of licensees are moving forward with applications of the technology while other researchers are developing their own intellectual property in unclaimed uses of CRISPR1. In 2015, over 100 patent applications on CRISPR technology were pending3. Meanwhile, companies using first-generation gene editing technologies like zinc finger nucleases and TALENs (transcription activator–like effector nucleases) are on the verge of bringing new products to market4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rood, J. The Scientist http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42595/title/Who-Owns-CRISPR-/ (3 April 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Broad Institute, Inc. v. The Regents of the Univ. of California. Declaration of Interference No. 106,048 (2016).

  3. Sherkow, J.S. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 256–257 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Han, A.P. GenomeWeb https://www.genomeweb.com/gene-silencinggene-editing/non-crispr-genome-editing-technologies-find-niche-biotech-applications (8 August 2016).

  5. Pollack, R. Science 348, 871 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Abbasi, J. JAMA 316, 482–483 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baltimore, D. et al. Science 348, 36–38 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S.E., Werner, M. & Smolenski, J. Nature 519, 410–411 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liang, P. et al. Protein Cell 6, 363–372 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kang, X. et al. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 33, 581–588 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Olson, S. (ed.) International Summit on Human Gene Editing: a Global Discussion (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2016).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Begley, S. STAT News https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/monsanto-licenses-crispr/ (22 September 2016).

  13. Editas Medicine, Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-1, amend. 1 (2016).

  14. Regalado, A. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602633/stop-gene-spills-before-they-happen/ MIT Technol. Rev. (20 October 2016).

  15. Mimura, C. in Working within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (eds. Dreyfuss, R.C., First, H. & Zimmerman, D.L.) 269–295 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rosen, I. https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/licensing-crispr-agriculture-policy-considerations Broad Institute News (29 September 2016).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Christi J. Guerrini, Margaret A. Curnutte and Christopher T. Scott are at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA, and,

    Christi J Guerrini, Margaret A Curnutte & Christopher T Scott

  2. Jacob S. Sherkow is at the Innovation Center for Law and Technology, New York Law School, New York, New York, USA.,

    Jacob S Sherkow

Authors
  1. Christi J Guerrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret A Curnutte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacob S Sherkow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher T Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christi J Guerrini.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guerrini, C., Curnutte, M., Sherkow, J. et al. The rise of the ethical license. Nat Biotechnol 35, 22–24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3756

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3756

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing