Will Molecular Biology's Most Important Discovery In Years Be Ruined By Patents?

from the GNU-Emacs-for-DNA dept

Fri, Nov 6th 2015 3:15am — Glyn Moody

Techdirt readers hardly need to be reminded that, far from promoting innovation, patents can shut it down, either directly, through legal action, or indirectly through the chill they cast on work in related areas. But not all patents are created equal. Some are so slight as to be irrelevant, while others have such a wide reach that they effectively control an entire domain. Patents on a new biological technique based on a mechanism found in nature, discussed in a long and fascinating piece in the Boston Review, definitely fall into the second category. Here's the article's explanation of the underlying mechanism, known as CRISPR-Cas:

Bacteria use CRISPR-Cas to attack the DNA of invading viruses. The workings of this natural defense mechanism were elucidated through basic research carried out mostly within universities. By hijacking and recombining its bacterial parts -- a flexible kind of engineering that is the hallmark of molecular biology -- researchers have shown how CRISPR-Cas can be used to edit the human genome, or any genome, in principle.

CRISPR-Cas can be thought of as the first really powerful and general-purpose genome editor -- a GNU Emacs for DNA. It is widely expected that it will have a massive impact on molecular biology, both for pure research and in industrial applications. Given those very high stakes, it will not come as a surprise to learn that there is already a fierce tussle over who owns a key patent in this field: A patent battle is raging between the University of California, Berkeley and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. MIT's Technology Review has called the legal dispute a "winner-take-all match" with "billion-dollar implications," as the contenders all have stakes in startup companies based on the technique. The Broad team was granted the first patent in 2014, but the Berkeley group filed paperwork contesting the decision.
As the Boston Review rightly points out, the Broad Institute patent is problematic for several reasons. It is very general, and lays claim to using CRISPR-Cas to edit all animal and plant DNA. The Broad Institute has granted an exclusive license for therapeutic applications, which means that the company concerned has a monopoly on what is expected to be one of the most important areas for CRISPR-Cas. Any other company wanting to use the technique, even for non-therapeutic work, must pay for a license. To top it all, it's generally accepted that CRISPR-Cas is the result of a global, collaborative effort: Academics around the globe, from Japan to Lithuania to Spain and the United States, have contributed to our understanding of CRISPR-Cas. No group can claim sole credit for discovering the system or the know-how for using it to edit genomes.
And yet the winner of the current patent battle, whether the Broad Institute, or the University of California, is likely to end up with immense power over the use of CRISPR-Cas. The article notes: Monopolizing a core technology developed collectively using public funding ought to require an extraordinary argument. Even if we limit ourselves to looking through the economic lens, this would require making the case that a monopoly on CRISPR-Cas therapeutics would be so wildly effective -- and wide enough in scope to tackle the huge range of diseases mentioned in the patent -- that it would far outweigh competitive efforts with tens, or hundreds of other companies. In the current debate, no such argument has been given.
As well as giving many other details about this important case and its historical background, the Boston Review article goes on to suggest an alternative approach to one based on intellectual monopolies, one that builds on the fact that CRISPR-Cas is a tool for editing the biological software at the heart of all life: We can take a leaf from the software world's book and sketch a free biology (as in "free software") that respects these responsibilities. This will require new mechanisms for describing research ownership and sharing that are in the public interest and that support the university’s research branch.
Although that may sound Utopian, for biology at least, it's starting to happen: Synthetic biology is already making steps in this direction, with projects such as BioBricks that provide a mechanism for scientists to contribute their work to a public registry and allow others to build on it.
Moreover, for those who think the idea of free biology will never really take off, it's worth remembering people said the same about free software, which now powers most of the digital world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

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: crispr, dnam crispr-cas, patents
Companies: cal, harvard, mit, university of california berkeley

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 1:32am

A problem that shouldn't exist
If multiple groups from around the world have been working on this, then the idea that anyone should get a patent on it is absurd. No one person or group did everything involved, start to finish, without outside influence, so no one group should be able to lock it down as though they were solely responsible for the discovery.

If they want credit for their individual contributions, fine, but this was clearly a group effort, so none of them should get the monopoly power over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: A problem that shouldn't exist
  True. But you could add the word "EVER", in caps, after your quote:
  
  "No one person or group did everything involved, start to finish, without outside influence" EVER.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Morgan Wick (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re: A problem that shouldn't exist
  But! But none of them would have done any of the work if they couldn't get a monopoly on it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 6 Nov 2015 @ 3:54am

"GNU Emacs for DNA"?
That's a rather absurd characterization if I ever saw any. It's more like an "sed for DNA". Which, mind you, would be a fantastic thing. Just not an absurdly specific fantastic thing like Emacs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: "GNU Emacs for DNA"?
  Yeah, everyone knows GNU software is viral, not bacterial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 6:56am
  
  Re: "GNU Emacs for DNA"?
  Now you've done it. Waiting for the next person to chime in with "you mean vi for DNA!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 6 Nov 2015 @ 7:44am
    
    Re: Re: "GNU Emacs for DNA"?
    You mean colon cancer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re: "GNU Emacs for DNA"?
    I believe it should be more like "TECO for DNA" (the original EMACS was written as TECO macros; EMACS => Editor MACroS).
    
    It is very early in the Molecular Biology tools; we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves with the analogies. We've got to give those life sciences types something to aspire to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 4:16am

So, isn't the correct resposne to throw out both arguments and declare the patent invalid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 5:04am

Capitalism loves monopoly.
Laissez-faire capitalism is given monopolies
It's sort of like communism in that all resources are owned by one entity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- musterion (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 7:27am
  
  Utter marxist nonsense
  Greedy People love monopoly whether its corrupt politicians, corrupt corporate presidents, oligarchs, you name it. "Real communism" doesn't exist, never has existed, and will never exist. Consider the latest example of a country going down this path--Venezuela. How can a govenment supposedly for the people allow the late leader's daughted amass a $4 billion fortune.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 5:17am

Abolish Patents
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 6 Nov 2015 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: Abolish Patents
  Ah, but patents are in our genes. At least if you eat too much Monsanto food.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re: Abolish Patents
    How would one go about defining non-Monsanto food in today's world?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 5:22am

Go ahead and patent it all.
India and China and Brasil won't care, they'll just use your tools and dare you to do something about it. They realize that you can't actually get everyone to agree to your asinine patent schemes and copyright limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 5:50am

Money for lawyers, but not for scholarships
So this is what these alleged institutions of higher learning want to spend their money? A pissing match over a discovery that belongs to the world? Where are the grown-ups?

Also: real men (and women) use vi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: Money for lawyers, but not for scholarships
  Also: real men (and women) use vi.
  
  Ah there it is. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 7:09am
    
    Re: Re: Money for lawyers, but not for scholarships
    OF COURSE it's there. ;) Jebus, you don't think that I could let this thread (about a gratuitous argument) go by without starting a gratuitous argument? Where would we be then? Huh? HUH?!
    
    Well, I suppose I could have said ed(1) -- which still has its uses by the way and is still an essential part of every Unix admin's toolkit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 7:46am
  
  Re: Money for lawyers, but not for scholarships
  I came to unix late in life (Redhat 3.5 or so), Basic on a mainframe first, Apple llc second, DOS third, and Windows (OK graphical DOS) fourth. So I have always thought edlin was the text editor of choice for masochists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re: Money for lawyers, but not for scholarships
  Also: real men (and women) use vi.
  
  Nah. Real men and women use both. As root, I'm doing quick tweaks of config files; in and out. As user, I'm writing code, using multiple buffers, yada yada.
  
  Blues Brothers: "We like both kinds of music, country and western."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
david, 6 Nov 2015 @ 6:50am

Can't patent nature?
Isn't there a concept that you can't patent nature, and CRISPR-Cas is exactly that. Also, patents are supposed to be somewhat specific, so trying to patent all uses of CRISPR-Cas should also be prohibited.

Now, if someone comes up with a specific treatment of something using that, I'd have no problem with patenting a specific implementation of that. That's like patenting 'breathing' and getting a license on anything that involves people taking gases into and out of their lungs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 11:33am
  
  Re: Can't patent nature?
  Alternate solution: allow them to patent nature but hold them responsible for it. The resulting billions of manslaughter charges should act as a long lasting lesson to others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 8:25am

A real question
I think someone should be asking another question: "Where does all this money go?"

I mean, suppose University of California wins this argument and truly makes billions on this technology: where would the money go? Shouldn't the university be teaching students for free on that money?

Or are they spending the NCAA earnings and all their patent royalties on their solid platinum stadium? Bonuses for the president?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 9:11am

Moreover, for those who think the idea of free biology will never really take off, it's worth remembering people said the same about free software, which now powers most of the digital world.

Or just remember the world roughly prior to the 80s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 2:30pm

First off, I am a US government employee in the DoD with several patents applied for. Therefore I know how the system works for government employees, and how I think the system should work for anyone who takes public money.

Anything we invent, we can patent. We usually do, in order to keep some of the unscrupulous companies we work with from coming in after us and patenting our work (it has happened, many times). As a condition of our employment, we must assign our patents to the US Government. Any company that is working for the US Government can freely use our patents without royalty for US Government applications. Anytime the tech is sold outside of the US Government (e.g. foreign military sales, commercial sales) we are paid a royalty for our patents.

I think that this sort of process should apply to any research paid for with public funds. The patents must be licensed, royalty free, for government funded (or perhaps non-government funded) research. Royalties would be awarded to those that developed the techniques (and hold the patents) for any commercial applications. This would enable the furthering of scientific research while protecting valuable techniques from unscrupulous businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re:
  I forgot to mention that we also get a bit of a kicker in our paycheck in order to provide an incentive to report ideas and file patents. We get $250 when we report a new, patentable idea to the local patent office and they accept it and a further $500 when the patent is filed. It's a nice bonus.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 7 Nov 2015 @ 11:54am

Mere Discorvery = No Patents
They didn't create this, they merely discovered it and found a use for it.

No patents for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Potymus, 7 Nov 2015 @ 1:59pm

DIY CRISPR
I wonder how that relates to this Indiegogo campaign?
What if people just start doing it by themselves?

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/diy-crispr-genome-engineering-kits-from-the-odin/x/4544718#/story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crispr, 7 Nov 2015 @ 5:04pm

Crispr/Cas9 is THE fundamental invention.

Not like a"complex" editor more like the invention of a simple transistor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
william morley, 9 Nov 2015 @ 7:20am

mono polopolies
MOVE THE UN EVERY FOUR YEARS LIKE THE OLYMPICS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]