Policy ForumIntellectual Property

Racing for academic glory and patents: Lessons from CRISPR

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  17 Nov 2017:
Vol. 358, Issue 6365, pp. 874-876
DOI: 10.1126/science.aao2468

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • The current patent law makes us happy?
    • Yasuhisa Yamashita, Patent Attorney, Shobayashi international patent & trademark office
    • Other Contributors:
      • Yoshiyasu Takefuji, Professor, Keio University

    Arti K. Rai et al. wrote an article entitled "Racing for academic glory and patents: lessons from CRISPR," published in Science (1). They describe two directions including academic glory and money (1). A patent is a right granted to the inventor and the right to exclude others from using a new technology (2). Patent law is designed to encourage inventors to disclose their new technology to the world by offering the incentive of a limited-time monopoly on the technology (2). The inventor is protected by the patent law where the term, "society's benefit" is not considered at all in the current law (2, 3). In the patent law, they assume that advancing the industry with the new technology makes us happy. Broader patents may sometimes disturb the progress of science (1). Not only the inventor's protection, but also global society's benefit should be considered in the future patent law. In other words, the current patent law should be updated by using the concept of "creative commons" instead of the exclusive right and patent monopoly. Or, patentleft is the practice of licensing patents (especially biological patents) for royalty-free use, on the condition that adopters license related improvements they develop under the same terms (4).

    References:
    1. Arti K. Rai et al., "Racing for academic glory and patents: Lessons from CRISPR," Science 17 Nov 2017: Vol. 358, Issue 6365, pp. 874-876
    2....

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.