Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research

Lei, Zhen and Juneja, Rakhi and Wright, Brian D (2009): Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Published in: Nature Biotechnology , Vol. 27, No. 1 (January 2009): pp. 36-40.

Abstract

A new survey shows scientists consider the proliferation of intellectual property protectionto have a strongly negative effect on research.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: patents, biology, intellectual property, material transfer agreements
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D23 - Organizational Behavior ; Transaction Costs ; Property Rights; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights

References

1. Walsh, J.P., Arora, A. & Cohen, W.M. Science 299, 1020 (2003).

2. Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).

3. S traus, J. Genetic inventions and patents: a German empirical study, in OECD Report “Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices,” Chapter 4, 2002. <http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/42/21/2491084.pdf>

4. N icol, D. & Nielsen, J. Patents and medical biotechnology: an empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry, Centre for Law & Genetics, Occasional Paper 6 (2003). <http://www.ipria.org/ publications/reports/BiotechReportFinal.pdf>

Nagaoka, S. An empirical analysis of patenting and licensing practices of research tools from three perspectives, presented in OECD Conference on Research Use of Patented Inventions, Madrid (2006). <http:// www.oepm.es/cs/OEPMSite/contenidos/ponen/conferenciantes/archivosPDF/36816178.pdf>

6. S hapiro, C., Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting, Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119–150 (2001).

7. Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

8. Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R.M., Kieff, F.S. & Walsh, J.P. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006). 9. Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Res. Policy 36, 1184–1203 (2007).

10. O’Connor, S. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 21, 1017– 1054, (2006).

11. Jefferson, R. Innov.: Technol., Governance, Global. 1, 13–44, (2006).

12. A tkinson, R.C. et al. Science 301,174–175 (2003).

13. <http://www.autm.net/aboutTT /aboutTT _umbta.cfm>

14. Cukier, K.N. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 249–251 (2006).

15. Hansen, S.A. International intellectual property experiences: a report of four countries (AAAS , Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_ Country_Report.pdf>

16. Goldberger, J., Foltz, J., Barham, B. & Goeschl, T. Summary report. Modern agricultural science in transition: a survey of US land-grant agricultural and life scientists. PATS Research Report No. 14, Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005). <http://www.pats.wisc.edu/Publications/Research%20 Reports/researchreport14.pdf>

17. Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y. & Gross, C.P. JAMA 289, 454– 465 (2003).

18. Hansen, S.A., Kisielewski, M.R. & Asher, J.L. Intellectual property experiences in the United States scientific community (AAAS , Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_US_ IP_Survey.pdf>

19. E isenberg, R.S. Ind. Corp. Change 15, 1013–1031 (2006).

20. Glenna, L.L., William, W.B., Welsh, R. & Biscotti, D. Sociol. Q. 48, 141–163 (2007).

21. Kennedy, D. Science 307, 1375 (2005).

22. E isenberg, R.S. in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (eds. Dreyfuss, R.C., Zimmerman, D.L. & First, H.) 223–250 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2001).

23. Kisielewski, M.R., Asher, J.L. & Hansen, S.A. Intellectual property experiences in the United Kingdom scientific community (AAAS, Washington, DC, 2007). <http:// sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_UK_IP_Survey.pdf>

24. Westerburg, S., Asher, J.L., Kisielewski, M.R. & Hansen, S.A. Intellectual property experiences in the German scientific community (AAAS , Washington, DC, 2007). <http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Germany_IP_Survey. pdf>

25. Walsh, J.P. & Huang, H.I. Research tool access in the age of the IP society. Results from a survey of Japanese scientists, Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest (2007) <http://sippi.aaas.org/ Pubs/SIPPI_Japan_IP_Survey.pdf>

26. Hagstrom, W.O. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 1–18 (1974).

27. Murray, F. & Stern, S. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63, 648– 687 (2007