Public vs. proprietary science: A fruitful tension ?

Daedalus

Volumn 131, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 89-100

  Eisenberg, Rebecca S ^a   Nelson, Richard R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842618735     PISSN: 00115266     EISSN: 15486192     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1997).
2. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Bargaining Over the Transfer of Proprietary Research Tools: Is This Market Failing or Emerging?" in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, ed. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, and Harry First (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 209-249;
3. Michael A. Heller and Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research," Science 280 (1998): 698-701.
4. See 35 US Code §§ 102, 103.
5. Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson, "On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope," Columbia Law Review 90 (1990): 839-916.
6. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, "Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research," Virginia Law Review 82 (1996): 1663-1727.
7. David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis, "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities : An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980," Researcli Policy 1 (30) (2001): 99-119.
8. For a definitive account of the origins of the Human Genome Project, see Robert Cook-Deegan, The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994).
9. For an early analysis of the project from leading scientists, see National Research Council, Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988).
10. Two recent histories offer excellent overviews of these events. See Kevin Davies, Cracking the Genome: Inside the Race to Unlock Human DNA (New York: Free Press, 2001);
11. Gary Zweiger, Transducing the Genome: Information, Anarchy, and Revolution in the Biomedical Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).
12. J. Craig Venter et al., "Shotgun Sequencing of the Human Genome," Science 280 (1998): 1540-1542.
13. See James L. Weber and Eugene W. Myers, "Human Whole-Genome Shotgun Sequencing," Genome Research 7 (5) (1997): 401;
14. Philip Green, "Against a Whole-Genome Shotgun," Genome Research 7 (5) (1997): 410.
15. J. Craig Venter et al., "The Sequence of the Human Genome," Science 291 (16 February 2001): 1304-1351;
16. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, "Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome," Nature 409 (15 February 2001): 860-921.
17. See Bernadine Healy, "Special Report on Gene Patenting," New England Journal of Medicine 327 (1992): 664;
18. Reid G. Adler, "Genome Research: Fulfilling the Public's Expectations for Knowledge and Commercialization," Science 257 (1992): 908-912.
19. Eliot Marshall, "A Showdown Over Gene Fragments," Science 266 (1994): 208-210.
20. Francis S. Collins, Mark S. Guyer, and Aravinda Chakravarti, "Variations on a Theme: Cataloging Human DNA Sequence Variation," Science 278 (1997): 1580-1581.
21. US Code § 202(3), (b)(1), (b)(4). 203(2).
22. National Institutes of Health RFA HG-98-001, "Methods for Discovering and Scoring Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms" (9 January 1998) (visited 1 August 2001).
23. Venter et al., "The Sequence of the Human Genome."
24. Testimony of Francis S. Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute, at a Hearing on the Human Genome Project before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, 17 June 1998 (Lexis).
25. On exclusions from patent protection for natural products, see Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 US 127 (1948).
26. On patents on inventions with no demonstrated practical application, see Brenner v. Manson, 383 US 519 (1966).
27. E.g., Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 253 F2d 156 (4th Cir 1958) (upholding patentability of purified vitamin B12).
28. See State St. Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F3d 1368 (Fed. Cir 1998), cert, denied, 515 US 1093 (1999);
29. T&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F3d 1352 (1999).
30. US Code §§ 101,112.
31. In re Brana, 51 F3d 1560 (Fed. Cir 1995).