5 ms·

Sigh, it's the PCR patent story all over again [1]. As always, government and charity funded researchers are spending government and charity funds on fighting e

• cmdrfred 10y ago
  This is a question I've asked many times and never got an answer, when you donate "for the cure" does that cure end up patented and sold back to you? That seems more like Kickstarter without the rewards than charity to me.
  • alextheparrot 10y ago
    In the end it might, the researchers themselves partner with pharma to do scale out.
• refurb 10y ago
  Does it really slow down medical progress? One argument is that getting a patent ensures exclusivity to use the technology. In turn, that drastically improves the likelihood of getting a return on any investment dollars. And finally, that attracts a lot more capital than a non-profit or gov't funded agency could typically get.
  • Gatsky 10y ago
    see the link in my comment. Like PCR, CRISPR is a relatively simple technology. It doesn't require billions of dollars of R&D to make it useful. Less useful gene editing tech (Zinc fingers, TALENS) have already been used in clinical trials. So just like PCR or that blood Myriad Genetics gene patent on BRCA1, patents hinder progress, make research more expensive, and impair new companies from getting started.
  • mhuffman 10y ago
    Why not make it patent free for government and charity funded projects then?
  • jhbadger 10y ago
    The problem is most tech-transfer departments that universities have actually lose money after paying the lawyers[1] is taken into account. Public research should belong to the people who paid for it -- the public. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-university-patents/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-university-patents/
• dekhn 10y ago
  The Broad licenses the technology. So, perhaps it's slowed down because people have to pay money to use it, but on the other hand, the technology is available, and the inventors derive some revenue from it.
  • patmcguire 10y ago
    For human-therapy applications, The Broad licenses it exclusively to Editas.
    • dekhn 10y ago
      That's not entirely correct. It's right of first refusal. Here is the terminology: However, after an initial period, other companies may apply to license certain CRISPR IP for use against genes of interest not being pursued by Editas. Specifically: (i) a third party interested in an individual gene target would provide a bona fide development plan, (ii) Editas then has a pre-defined period to decide whether it intends to pursue the gene of interest and to commit funding and launch a program, and; (iii) if Editas is not already working on the gene of interest and chooses not to launch a new program of its own within this period, the IP may be available for licensing by Broad, Harvard, and MIT to the third party. I wouldn't call it "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory", but it's not entirely exclusive.
      • patmcguire 10y ago
        I read three or four places trying to source this, none of them made this distinction. Is this any different in practice? Don't you have to do a bunch of work before you can provide a bona fide development plan?
        • dekhn 10y ago
          It's directly on the Broad page for licensing CRISPR: https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic-alliances-and-partnering/information-about-licensing-crispr-genome-edi https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic... Note that they make the tech completely free to the academic community. Right of first refusal is very different from exclusive licensing. The development plan issue is handled by grownups at companies with hundreds of millions of dollars of funding and they already developed development plans.