
The War Over Genome Editing - situationista
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/war-genome-editing-just-got-lot-interesting/?mbid=social_twitter
======
mtgx
> So revolutionary is this new genome editing technique that rival groups, who
> each claim to have been first to the tech, are bitterly fighting over the
> CRISPR/Cas9 patent. This new gene-editing protein called Cpf1—and maybe even
> others yet to be discovered—means that one patent may not be so powerful
> after all.

Just goes to show the silliness of patents. Even the lightbulb was invented by
multiple people at the same time. Yet only one got to have a 20 year monopoly
over it. Why should that be the case when multiple people invent it at the
same time? Just let them compete. Competition is always good.

~~~
Turing_Machine
The standard argument for patents is that patents require that the method be
disclosed. Otherwise discoveries are kept as trade secrets rather than being
published for anyone to use after the patent expires.

~~~
toomuchtodo
But is that even needed anymore with so many people able to come up with the
same discovery simultaneously?

Patents are no longer providing for pushing forward the sciences and humanity,
merely rent seeking.

~~~
karmelapple
This patent allows the process to be used without cost for research purposes,
but requires money be paid to the patent holder when used in a product for
profit.

Is this a good way for a research organization - typically a university- to
have a sort of "profit sharing" arrangement with private industry, while still
allowing scientific progress to march forward?

For-profit companies would not donate a fraction of their proceeds back to the
researchers that came up with the enabling discovery. Isn't this just a way to
levy a tax on those profiting from standing on the shoulders of giants, which
can then be used to find more scientific discoveries?

------
mindcrime
Even if you believe in patents in principle, I have a hard time seeing how
this should be patentable. You're basically talking about a protein / enzyme
that exists in nature already, not something new that somebody created.
Personally I would stringently object to issuing patents for that sort of
thing, IF i weren't already opposed to the whole idea of patents in general.

Like another commenter said... patents like this are just about supporting
rent-seeking behavior, not advancing scientific progress.

~~~
karmelapple
Note that the protein is not patentable, but using it in a process is what's
under the patent discussion.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this process is also available for free
for academic use, but costs money if a company makes a product that's sold for
money.

Penicillin was not patentable, but a process for making and harvesting it
easily was. Whether that's a good thing or not is certainly up for debate,
although some interesting facts and opinions are documented in this article
about penicillin: [https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Alexander-
Fleming-...](https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Alexander-Fleming-and-
Penicillin-The-Wonder-Drug-)

------
noname123
From what I understand, the Broad patents are free to license for academic
community and not free for industry.

[https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-
strategic...](https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic-
alliances-and-partnering/information-about-licensing-crispr-cas9-syste)

"Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard University partners have made CRISPR-Cas9
technology broadly available to the research community. Broad Institute is
working with AddGene, a non-profit plasmid repository, to offer Zhang lab
CRISPR plasmids and reagents ... in addition we have non-exclusively licensed
many industry partners for development of research tools and reagents and will
continue to do so."

The reagent/CRISPR toolkit link here (can anyone just sign up and order the
reagents?): [https://www.addgene.org/CRISPR/](https://www.addgene.org/CRISPR/)

I'm curious, for peeps in industry who have licensed the original CRISPR/Cas9
patent from the Broad, what is the fee structure that the Broad is charging(?)

Or alternatively do people choose to license patents from the companies
established by the three major PI's who claim discovery for different parts of
CRISPR (Zhang, Doudna et al?)

Lastly, I'm curious why two 501(c) academic institutions are even fighting for
this patent. Both UC Berkeley molecular biology dept. and Broad Institute are
funded significantly via federal research grants that are awarded to
individual labs within the organizations. If it seems like the status quo is
that CRISPR is free to license for the academic community, does it matter
which place owns the patent?

~~~
carbocation
> Lastly, I'm curious why two 501(c) academic institutions are even fighting
> for this patent.

Their choice to freely license it to the academic community only increases the
likelihood that, depending on licensing fees, the technology will generate
huge revenue from industry.

~~~
karmelapple
That revenue will go back to the university for (hopefully) additional
research, rather than to stockholders of a for-profit company.

