A new survey shows scientists consider the proliferation of intellectual property protection to have a strongly negative effect on research.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Walsh, J.P., Arora, A. & Cohen, W.M. Science 299, 1020 (2003).
Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).
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>
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>
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>
Shapiro, C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting, Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119–150 (2001).
Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).
Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R.M., Kieff, F.S. & Walsh, J.P. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).
Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Res. Policy 36, 1184–1203 (2007).
O'Connor, S. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 21, 1017–1054, (2006).
Jefferson, R. Innov.: Technol., Governance, Global. 1, 13–44, (2006).
Atkinson, R.C. et al. Science 301, 174–175 (2003).
Cukier, K.N. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 249–251 (2006).
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>
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>
Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y. & Gross, C.P. JAMA 289, 454–465 (2003).
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>
Eisenberg, R.S. Ind. Corp. Change 15, 1013–1031 (2006).
Glenna, L.L., William, W.B., Welsh, R. & Biscotti, D. Sociol. Q. 48, 141–163 (2007).
Kennedy, D. Science 307, 1375 (2005).
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).
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>
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>
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>
Hagstrom, W.O. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 1–18 (1974).
Murray, F. & Stern, S. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63, 648–687 (2007).
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.
Rights 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
This article is cited by
Access and openness in biotechnology research collaborations between universities and industry
Nature Biotechnology (2019)
Stimulating academic patenting in a university ecosystem: an agent-based simulation approach
The Journal of Technology Transfer (2019)
AFHVS 2017 presidential address
Agriculture and Human Values (2017)
Data management for plant phenomics
Journal of Plant Biology (2017)
The emerging patent landscape of CRISPR–Cas gene editing technology
Nature Biotechnology (2016)