Molecular Biotechnology: Principles and Applications - Glick, B., Pasternak, J. 2002

Research Control in Molecular Biotechnology and the Patenting of Biotechnological Inventions
Patenting Biotechnological Inventions
Patenting and Fundamental Research

Not everyone is convinced of the expediency of patenting. Some argue that granting monopoly rights restricts competition, drives up prices, stifles new developments, and favors large corporations to the detriment of individual inventors and small companies. Despite all this, the patent system remains stable and well-developed. Moreover, it has become evident that patenting does not hinder fundamental research and the scientific activities of firms and companies. For instance, had it posed a serious obstacle to innovation, U.S. Patent No. 4,237,224, issued to Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer in 1980 for The Use of viral and Plasmid Vectors to generate recombinant DNAs, would have significantly impeded The Development of molecular biotechnology (Fig. 23.1). Clearly, nothing of the sort happened.

Class="center">

Fig. 23.1. The first claim of U.S. Patent No. 4,237,224, issued to S. Cohen and H. Boyer on December 2, 1980, and entitled "Process for Producing Biologically Functional Molecular Chimeras."¹⁾

¹⁾ According to current patent law, each patent claim must be written as a single sentence and is therefore often quite cumbersome and difficult to comprehend. — Translator's Note.

Previously, the patenting and commercialization of patented biotechnological inventions were primarily of concern to biologists. However, there is now a growing sentiment within the scientific community that patenting and its consequences may undermine fundamental scientific values. Traditionally, science—especially academic science—has been an open system characterized by the free exchange of ideas and research findings through scholarly publications and personal communications. Colleagues' ideas were treated with respect, and progress in a given field was frequently achieved through collaborative efforts. Later on, however, some researchers began to lean toward the view that the integration of scientific research is secondary to private interests, and that the primary drivers for pursuing science are public recognition and the financial profit derived from innovation. Historically, fundamental research was conducted largely in the open. Scientists were confident that overall progress would be faster if experimental results were published in scientific journals accessible to anyone. This helped in choosing the right research direction and allowed researchers to benefit from discoveries made by others. Under conditions of secrecy, a great deal of time can be wasted repeating experiments that have already been performed. Today, patent attorneys advise scientists to keep their work confidential until a patent application has been filed. An increasing number of scientists are becoming involved in patenting their inventions, forcing them to remain silent about their research, at least until the relevant application is prepared and submitted to the Patent Office.

Furthermore, As a result of declining government funding, non-profit institutions and universities in particular have been forced to seek alternative revenue sources. Royalties and licensing fees from the sale and assignment of patent rights are becoming new streams of income. A striking example is the patent issued to Cohen and Boyer for recombinant DNA techniques. Over its entire lifespan from 1980 to 1997, it generated approximately $45 million in revenue for Stanford University and the University of California. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology files more than 100 patent Applications annually across all research fields, and its licensing revenue amounts to $5.5 million per year. Most universities have well-organized patent departments that handle patent prosecution and The transfer of developed technologies to industry. Authors typically receive a share of the revenues generated by their inventions. Thus, commercial brokerage activity is a tangible part of life for many universities in the U.S. and other countries. It is important that this activity does not overshadow the other missions of academic institutions.

The enthusiasm with which scientific developments are being patented raises concerns that science could become hostage to patent holders and that research might become increasingly less productive. Yet there is another perspective: some believe that the traditional path of scientific development is outdated and inefficient, and that patent rights and their enforcement will stimulate new developments. Resolving this controversy will not be easy. It is only clear that the advent of molecular biotechnology has raised numerous serious challenges, including the question of the future trajectory of science.