Harvard Research Scientist: Sharing Discoveries More Efficient, More Honorable Than Patenting Them
from the my-hero dept
Meet Jay Bradner, Harvard research scientist, who disovered a promising molecule that may represent a step forward in the fight against cancer and decided to put science before fortune, because he's a human being. Oh, and also because he suggests that going the patent route would be less efficient and less honorable.Two years ago, after Jay Bradner made a remarkable breakthrough—the discovery of a molecule that, in mice, appeared to trick certain cancer cells into becoming normal cells—he did something unusual. Instead of huddling with lawyers to file for a patent on the molecule, Bradner simply gave his work away. Hoping to get the discovery into the hands of any scientist who could advance it, he published the structure of the compound (called JQ1) and mailed samples to labs around the world. The move, he says, felt like “the more efficient way to do science—and maybe the more honorable way.”More efficient. More honorable. It's a small example of the potential destruction for both prongs of the pro-patent argument. If it makes science more efficient to not patent, there goes promoting the progress. If it's more honorable, there goes the moral argument. And, unlike some pharma companies, I'm not even going to make patents the key point here: Bradner's focus is on helping people. Do we get the same sense from the crowd patenting their drugs, their medical diagnostic techniques, and anything else they can get their hands on?
Now, lest you write this off as some minor discovery that Bradner made, this molecule would likely have made him a great deal of money.
The monopoly on developing the molecule that Bradner walked away from would likely have been worth a fortune (last year, the median value for U.S.-based biotech companies was $370 million). Now four companies are building on his discovery—which delights Bradner, who this year released four new molecules. “For years, drug discovery has been a dark art performed behind closed doors with the shades pulled,” he says. “I would be greatly satisfied if the example of this research contributed to a change in the culture of drug discovery.”This puts Bradner firmly on my hero list. Here's hoping he succeeds in helping to change the biomedical culture.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cancer, jay bradner, medical, patents, research
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wake up and smell the reality
Can't wait for the arguments about how this research would never be funded unless the company doing it can patent and monopolize the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, they can?
> monopolize the result.
IIRC, if the companies involved are modifying the drug in even minor ways (chemically), they almost certainly will be able to get patents on the "new" chemicals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent-Lefting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws are for the dishonorable.
As to more efficient: remains to be seen. I can imagine circumstances in which the profit motive gets this developed more quickly...
[Let's take as premise that orthographic spelling is honorable and promotes civilization. Yet you use these characters: "distruction". -- Were you going for "destruction" or "distraction"? Cause either might work. Or just going for logoplex?]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
But never as quickly as the motivation of saving a life...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
You're only telling one side of the story and arguably the less important side. If we accept that morality is a social construct (which I do) and is thus to be viewed primarily from the standpoint of greater society (which it should), then the proper frame for the moral argument is what is moral for SOCIETY, not the individual creator. In the case of biomedical patents, there is no moral argument for creation and patent, because this case shows that the moral goal of helping the sick is better obtained through free sharing and without the patent. I'd argue you're mis-framing the moral argument entirely.
"As to more efficient: remains to be seen. I can imagine circumstances in which the profit motive gets this developed more quickly..."
That's only the case if you believe creation won't happen without the patent. While this is but one example, it is a testament to it's possible falsity.
"[Let's take as premise that orthographic spelling is honorable and promotes civilization. Yet you use these characters: "distruction". -- Were you going for "destruction" or "distraction"? Cause either might work. Or just going for logoplex?]"
While your premise that spelling has anything to do with reality, you're absolutely correct that I misspelled "destruction", so thanks for pointing it out. I'll edit to correct that momentarily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
I think you mean "in a moment". "Momentarily" has a slightly different meaning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
Adverb:
For a very short time.
At any moment; very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
But the usage of "momentarily" to mean "presently" is almost 100 years old in both America and the UK. It's even listed on the non-errors page of Common Errors in English at: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html#momentarily
That page is usually good enough to refute all but the most stubborn of prescriptivists. It's a good personal reference too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws are for the dishonorable.
Well. That speaks volumes about you, don't it, out_of_the_ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said...
However, the above should in no way detract from Jay Bradner's eligibility for a Nobel Prize in being GODDAMN AWESOME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That said...
Signed,
One of the Two Cancer Patients in my household.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That said...
And this is the argument that the patent system was based on. That nobody would invest in the research and development necessary to create unless they could have a monopoly for a short period that they could use to recoup their investment and then make a profit.
However, as this and many other examples shows - there are lots of other motivations that may make the patent system entirely unnecessary. Remember, the patent system is a trade-off. The public trades the right to copy an invention for a short period to give inventors an incentive. If the inventors already have an incentive, isn't it better for society to not give up their rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a patent version of the GPL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if only they gave away tuition....
It's very easy to be magnanimous and give away a few ideas when you're so filthy rich. Yet many others at the place patent things in order to get even richer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, if only they gave away tuition....
In Europe we have a first to file. Guess what happens when he doesn't patent it here?
As for economy, the "publicly funded research" patent is problematic in its own ways, by taking a patent screening and therefore economy devoted to research away from the admittedly huge grants. It is very few of the discoveries actually getting patented and being worth it to license is an even further obstacle.
As for being rich you should really look at your wording since rich university is not the same as rich researcher (though "rich" researcher does equate rich university to some extend).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's sad that I feel compelled to say this, but ...
One would think Dr. Borlaug would also have some nice words for him if he was still with us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a novel concept....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and i thought decency, humanity, and generosity were dead...
(filed under sad but apparently true)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling by Masnick
The operative word is MAY. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Either way he still gets paid. Many inventors do not have that luxury. We need patents to help us get funded to continue our work to bring our discoveries to completion and to market. Without patents we can't get funding.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.
http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
Also, am I the only one that finds it funny 'staff' waits a day after each patent-related article to plug his copy-pasted insults / self-promotion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bradner seems a real mensch!
Yet not a word from Bradner about patents, no he does not seem to be anti-patent. My bet is if he heard that someone struggled to create a new thing with little or no pay he would agree that person should be paid for their work JUST AS JAY BRADNER was paid by Harvard to find his new molecules.
Only Masnick, his clients and his henchmen think inventors shouldn't be compensated. Only Masnick would be low enough to use this good man's good act as an argument to destroy the law that protects inventors from unlimited predation by the greedy and predatory.
By the way I also think it impressive that Harvard lets Jay dispose of this valuable technology at his discretion rather then insist on some portion of ownership (like most state Universities).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bradner seems a real mensch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JTP=nada Bradner seems a real mensch!
I think the patent law and system can be fixed to deal with the worst abuses from strong arm thieves like MS, and Apple, and from abusive patent owners like MS and Apple (just ask Samsung).
In the repair process the smallest entities can get the kind of fee structure and especially maintenance structure they need to do the thing they do best. Bringing to life completely new things can easily take ten to fifteen years and in todays environment after being forced to break a single patent app in 10 to 50 separate patents we can be talking about $50,000 to $100,000 in small entity maintenance fees. Now the choice is likely to break the bank in the small entity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]