ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch IntegrityA Patent Decision on Crispr Gene Editing Favors MIT – Wired (AUTHOR: Adam Rogers and Eric Niiler | February 2017)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

A Patent Decision on Crispr Gene Editing Favors MIT – Wired (AUTHOR: Adam Rogers and Eric Niiler | February 2017)

Published/Released on February 16, 2017 | Posted by Admin on April 22, 2017 / , , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


THE FIGHT OVER who owns the most promising technique for editing genes—cutting and pasting the stuff of life to cure disease and advance scientific knowledge—has been a rough one. A team on the West Coast, at UC Berkeley, filed patents on the method, Crispr-Cas9; a team on the East Coast, based at MIT and the Broad Institute, filed their own patents in 2014 after Berkeley’s, but got them granted first. The Berkeley group contended that this constituted “interference,” and that Berkeley deserved the patent.

Strictly speaking this isn’t research integrity but we thought it so interesting we’re sneaking it into our research integrity newsroom

At stake: millions, maybe billions of dollars in biotech money and licensing fees, the future of medicine, the future of bioscience. Not nothing. Who will benefit depends on who owns the patents.
.
On Wednesday, the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board kind of, sort of, almost began to answer that question. Berkeley will get the patent for using the system called Crispr-Cas9 in any living cell, from bacteria to blue whales. Broad/MIT gets the patent in eukaryotic cells, which is to say, plants and animals.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece



Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics

0