Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research

A new survey shows scientists consider the proliferation of intellectual property protection to have a strongly negative effect on research.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Walsh, J.P., Arora, A. & Cohen, W.M. Science 299, 1020 (2003).

  2. 2

    Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).

  3. 3

    Straus, J. Genetic inventions and patents: a German empirical study, in OECD Report “Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices,” Chapter 4, 2002. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/21/2491084.pdf>

  4. 4

    Nicol, D. & Nielsen, J. Patents and medical biotechnology: an empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry, Centre for Law & Genetics, Occasional Paper 6 (2003). <http://www.ipria.org/publications/reports/BiotechReportFinal.pdf>

  5. 5

    Nagaoka, S. An empirical analysis of patenting and licensing practices of research tools from three perspectives, presented in OECD Conference on Research Use of Patented Inventions, Madrid (2006). <http://www.oepm.es/cs/OEPMSite/contenidos/ponen/conferenciantes/archivosPDF/36816178.pdf>

  6. 6

    Shapiro, C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting, Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119–150 (2001).

  7. 7

    Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

  8. 8

    Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R.M., Kieff, F.S. & Walsh, J.P. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).

  9. 9

    Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Res. Policy 36, 1184–1203 (2007).

  10. 10

    O'Connor, S. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 21, 1017–1054, (2006).

  11. 11

    Jefferson, R. Innov.: Technol., Governance, Global. 1, 13–44, (2006).

  12. 12

    Atkinson, R.C. et al. Science 301, 174–175 (2003).

  13. 13

    <http://www.autm.net/aboutTT/aboutTT_umbta.cfm>

  14. 14

    Cukier, K.N. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 249–251 (2006).

  15. 15

    Hansen, S.A. International intellectual property experiences: a report of four countries (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_Country_Report.pdf>

  16. 16

    Goldberger, J., Foltz, J., Barham, B. & Goeschl, T. Summary report. Modern agricultural science in transition: a survey of US land-grant agricultural and life scientists. PATS Research Report No. 14, Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005). <http://www.pats.wisc.edu/Publications/Research%20Reports/researchreport14.pdf>

  17. 17

    Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y. & Gross, C.P. JAMA 289, 454–465 (2003).

  18. 18

    Hansen, S.A., Kisielewski, M.R. & Asher, J.L. Intellectual property experiences in the United States scientific community (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_US_IP_Survey.pdf>

  19. 19

    Eisenberg, R.S. Ind. Corp. Change 15, 1013–1031 (2006).

  20. 20

    Glenna, L.L., William, W.B., Welsh, R. & Biscotti, D. Sociol. Q. 48, 141–163 (2007).

  21. 21

    Kennedy, D. Science 307, 1375 (2005).

  22. 22

    Eisenberg, R.S. in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (eds. Dreyfuss, R.C., Zimmerman, D.L. & First, H.) 223–250 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2001).

  23. 23

    Kisielewski, M.R., Asher, J.L. & Hansen, S.A. Intellectual property experiences in the United Kingdom scientific community (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_UK_IP_Survey.pdf>

  24. 24

    Westerburg, S., Asher, J.L., Kisielewski, M.R. & Hansen, S.A. Intellectual property experiences in the German scientific community (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Germany_IP_Survey.pdf>

  25. 25

    Walsh, J.P. & Huang, H.I. Research tool access in the age of the IP society. Results from a survey of Japanese scientists, Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest (2007) <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Japan_IP_Survey.pdf>

  26. 26

    Hagstrom, W.O. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 1–18 (1974).

  27. 27

    Murray, F. & Stern, S. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63, 648–687 (2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Giannini Foundation. We thank Mary Louise Trammell, Office of Technology Transfer, the University of Arizona, and Peggy Lemaux, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, for their contributions to this research, and Sara Boettiger, Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, for valuable comments and advice.

Author information

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Interviews (PDF 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lei, Z., Juneja, R. & Wright, B. Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nat Biotechnol 27, 36–40 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0109-36

Download citation

Further reading