8 ms·
I won't do the full analysis justice in a brief comment, but this is an empirical question that has some evidence. The draft human reference genome was publish
by carbocation 16y ago
I won't do the full analysis justice in a brief comment, but this is an empirical question that has some evidence.
The draft human reference genome was published 10 years ago. Prior to this, dozens of genes were discovered and patented by Celera. Celera gave free access to these genes to academics, but required payment for any for-profit activity. By one analysis, genes that were ever controlled by Celera, despite these relatively loose restrictions, as of 2009 had 30% less research done on them than those genes that were never controlled by Celera.
http://www.nber.org/~heidiw/papers/5_12_10a_hlw.pdf http://www.nber.org/~heidiw/papers/5_12_10a_hlw.pdf
- JunkDNA 16y agoI worked for a very well known company who licensed some of the early genes that were patented by companies like Celera. It was such a painful experience and the arrangement caused tons of legal knots years later. When the license period ended I distinctly remember an email asking that in addition to surrendering all documents related to the genes, we had to "forget" anything we might have learned personally about them. By that time they were all publicly known, so it was a bit hard to tease out what was learned as a result of the patented genes vs. what you learned from a search at NCBI.
- carbocation 16y agoIf you blog, I'd love to see that comment fleshed out in longer form. Your story sounds very interesting!
- JunkDNA 16y agoI don't have a blog because I have yet to convince myself other people would be interested in what I have to say. I might have to start one.