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.

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

Nature Biotechnology volume 27, pages 36–40 (2009)Cite this article

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

A system of intellectual property (IP) rights can encourage inventions by scientists and help promote the transformation of research achievements into marketed products. But associated restrictions on access can reduce utilization of inventions by other scientists. How is this trade-off working out in practice?

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

  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>

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zhen Lei and Brian D. Wright are in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 207 Giannini Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA. wright@are.berkeley.edu,

    Zhen Lei & Brian D Wright

  2. Rakhi Juneja is in the Office of Technology Transfer, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA.,

    Rakhi Juneja

Authors
  1. Zhen Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rakhi Juneja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian D Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0109-36

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