, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 383–398 | Cite as

The Commodification of Emergence: Systems Biology, Synthetic Biology and Intellectual Property

  • Jane Calvert


In this article I address the interactions between biological knowledge and ideas about the kinds of entity that are suited to appropriation. I start by arguing that commodification and reductionism are closely linked, and that patenting suits entities that are discrete and isolable, such as those that are the focus of molecular biology. I then turn to the new field of systems biology, which recognizes that traditional reductionist approaches to biology are no longer adequate and attempts to provide a more integrative understanding of biological systems. In doing this, systems biology has to deal with emergent phenomena. But patenting does not suit the dynamic and interactive complexity that is the object of study in systems biology. If systems biology rejects reductionism where does that leave commodification? I examine attempts to commodify predictive computational models in systems biology. I then turn to systems biology's sister discipline, synthetic biology, which deals with emergence by reducing the complexity of biological systems. By factoring out messy contingencies, synthetic biology is, in theory, well suited to commodification. Drawing on both these examples I explore how ideas about appropriation, including open source, are influencing the nature and course of research in biology.


Commodification Disentanglement Emergence Intellectual Property Synthetic Biology Systems Biology 



This article owes much to previous collaborative work and stimulating discussions with Maureen O'Malley, Alex Powell and Jonathan Davies. I would also like to thank Adrian Haddock, Gill Haddow, Klaus Hoeyer, Donald MacKenzie, Alex Powell, Cynthia Selin, Robin Williams and two anonymous referees for their thoughtful and helpful comments on this paper.


  1. Adelman D.E. (2005). A fallacy of the commons in biotech patent policy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20, 985–1030.Google Scholar
  2. Allarakhia M., & Wensley A. (2005). Innovation and intellectual property rights in systems biology. Nature Biotechnology, 23(12), 1485–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (1991). URL (accessed October 2008):
  4. Andrianantoandro E., Basu S., Karig D.K., & Weiss R. (2006). Synthetic biology: New engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular Systems Biology, URL (accessed October 2008):
  5. Ashcroft R.E. (2003). The double helix 50 years on: Models, metaphors, and reductionism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29: 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auffray C., Imbeaud S., Roux-Rouquié M., & Hood L. (2003). From functional genomics to systems biology: Concepts and practices. Compte Rendus Biologies, 326(10), 879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balaram P. (2003). Synthesising life. Current Science, 85(11), 1509–1510.Google Scholar
  8. Balmer B.L. (1996). Managing mapping in the human genome project. Social Studies of Science, 26(3), 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrett C.L., Kim T.Y., Kim H.U., Palsson B.Ø., & Lee S.Y. (2006). Systems biology as a foundation for genome-scale synthetic biology. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17(5), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BBSRC (2006). Towards a vision and road map for systems biology. Report from the BBSRC Vision for Systems Biology Workshop, Exeter, 16–17 March.Google Scholar
  11. Behrens T.R., & Gray D.O. (2001). Unintended consequences of co-operative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benner S.A., & Sismour A.M. (2005). Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biagioli M. (2007). Denaturalizing the public domain: How to use science studies to rethink IP. Talk at the University of Edinburgh, 10 December.Google Scholar
  14. BIOS (2008). URL (accessed January 2008):
  15. Blumenthal D., Causino N., Campbell E., & Lewis K.S. (1996). Relationships between academics institutions and industry in the life sciences—An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(6), 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bonneuil C., & Gaudillière J.-P. (2007). Navigating post-Fordist DNA: Network, regulations and variability in genomics and society. Presentation at the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology, University of Exeter, 25–29 July.Google Scholar
  17. Boogerd F., Bruggeman F.J., Hofmeyr J.-H.S., & Westerhoff H.V. (Eds) (2007). Systems biology: Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Breithaupt H. (2006). The engineer's approach to biology. EMBO Reports, 7(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brent R. (2004). A partnership between biology and engineering. Nature Biotechnology, 22(10), 1211–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Broad C.D. (1925). The mind and its place in nature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  21. Callon M. (Ed.) (1998). The laws of the markets. London: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Callon M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In MacKenzie D., Muniesa F., & Siu L. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. 311–357 Princeton. NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  23. Caulfield T., Cook-Deegan R.M., Kieff F.S., & Walsh J.P. (2006). Evidence and anecdotes: An analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nature Biotechnology, 24(9), 1091–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crick F. (1966). The influence of physics on molecular biology (Cherwell-Simon Lecture), URL (accessed October 2008):
  25. De Vriend H. (2006). Constructing life: Early social reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. The Hague: Rathenau Institute. Working Document 97, URL (accessed June 2008):
  26. Dupré J. (2007). Is it not possible to reduce biological explanations to explanations in chemistry and/or physics. Egenis working paper.Google Scholar
  27. Endy D. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology. Nature, 438(24 November), 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Etzkowitz H., & Leydesdorff L. (2001). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Ferber D. (2004). Microbes made to order. Science, 303 (9 January), 158–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franklin S. (2003). Kinship, genes, and cloning: Life after Dolly. In Goodman A., Heath D., & Lindee S. (Eds.), Genetic nature/culture: Anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide, 95–110. Berkeley: U California Press.Google Scholar
  31. GenomeWeb Daily News (2008). Codon Devices, Blue Heron settle litigation. GenomeWeb Daily News 31 March, URL (accessed July 2008):
  32. Gibbons M., & Wittrock B. (Eds) (1985). Science as a commodity. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., & Trow M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  34. Gilbert S.F., & Sarkar S. (2000). Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics, 219(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glass J.I., Smith H.O., Hutchinson III C.A., Alperovich N.Y., & Assad-Garcia N. (Inventors); J. Craig Venter Institute, Inc. (Assignee). 2007, October 12. Minimal bacterial genome. United States patent application 20070122826.Google Scholar
  36. Hacking I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heinemann M., & Panke S. (2006). Synthetic biology—Putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics, 22(22), 2790–2799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heller M.A., & Eisenberg R.S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(1 May), 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hellström T., & Jacob M. (2005). Taming unruly science and saving national competitiveness: Discourses on science by Swedish strategic research bodies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(4), 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Henkel J., & Maurer S.M. (2007). The economics of synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology 3: 117, URL (accessed October 2008):
  41. Hodgson G.M. (2000). The concept of emergence in social science: Its history and importance. Emergence, 2(4), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoeyer K. (2007). Person, patent and property: A critique of the commodification hypothesis. BioSocieties, 2, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holm P. (2007). Which way is up on Callon? In MacKenzie D., Muniesa F., & Siu L. (Eds.) Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics, 225–243. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  44. Huang S. (2000). The practical problems of post-genomic biology. Nature Biotechnology, 18(5), 471–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Isaacs F.J., & Collins J.J. (2005). Plug and play with RNA. Nature Biotechnology, 23(3), 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jacob M. (2003). Rethinking science and commodifying knowledge. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jansanoff S. (Ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keasling J. (2005). The promise of synthetic biology. The Bridge, 35 (4), URL (accessed July 2008):
  49. Keasling J., Vincent M., Pitera D., Kim S.-W., Sydnor W.T., Yasuo Y. et al. (2007). USPTO Patent Application 20070166782: Biosynthesis of isopentenyl pyrophosphate.Google Scholar
  50. Keller E.F. (2005). The century beyond the gene. Journal of the Biosciences, 30(1), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kumar S., & Rai A.K. (2007). Synthetic biology: The intellectual property puzzle. Texas Law Review, 85, 1745–1768.Google Scholar
  52. Lind D., & Barham E. (2004). The social life of the tortilla: Food, cultural politics, and contested commodification. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mack G.S. (2004). Can complexity be commercialized? Nature Biotechnology, 22(10), 1223–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marguet P., Balagadde P., Tan C., & You L. (2007). Biology by design: Reduction and synthesis of cellular components and behaviour. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, URL (accessed October 2008):
  55. Maurer S. (2006). Reporter notes on Synthetic Biology/Economics Workshop: Choosing the Right IP Policy. UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, 31 March 2006. URL (consulted): Scholar
  56. Marx K. (1887). Capital, vol. 1: The process of production of capital. Trans. S. Moore and E. Aveling, Ed. F. Engels. Moscow: Progress Publishers. URL (accessed December 2007): Marx/Engels Internet Archive
  57. McAfee K. (2003). Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: Economies and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles. Geoforum, 34(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mirowski P., & Sent E.M. (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: U Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Mirowski P., & Sent E.M. (2007). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In Hackett E., Amsterdamska O., Wajcman J., & Lynch M. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies, 635–689. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Moss L. (2003). What genes can't do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nature Biotechnology (2005). Recent patent applications in systems biology. Nature Biotechnology, 23(8), 939.Google Scholar
  62. Nature (2005). In pursuit of systems. Nature, 435 (5 May), 1.Google Scholar
  63. Nowotny H., Scott P., & Gibbons M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  64. O'Malley M., Powell A., Davies J., & Calvert J. (2008). Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays, 30(1), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Packer K., & Webster A. (1996). Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Palsson B. (2000). The challenges of in silico biology. Nature Biotechnology, 18(11), 1147–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parry B.C. (2008). Entangled exchange: Reconceptualising the characterisation and practice of bodily commodification. Geoforum, 39(3), 1133–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pearson H. (2006). What is a gene? Nature, 441(25 May), 399–401.Google Scholar
  69. Pottage A. (2007). The socio-legal implications of the new biotechnologies. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pottage A., & Sherman B. (2007). Organisms and manufactures: On the history of plant inventions. Melbourne University Law Review, 31(2), 539–568.Google Scholar
  71. Powell A., & Dupré J.A. (forthcoming). From molecules to systems: The importance of looking both ways. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences.Google Scholar
  72. Powell A., O'Malley M.A., Müller-Wille S., Calvert J., & Dupré J.A. (2007). Disciplinary baptisms: A comparison of the naming stories of genetics, molecular biology, genomics and systems biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 29, 5–32.Google Scholar
  73. Rai A., & Boyle J. (2007). Synthetic biology: caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. PLoS Biology, 5, URL (consulted October 2008):
  74. Richardson R.C., & Stephan A. (2007). Emergence. Biological Theory, 2(1), 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Russell J. (2006). Optimata, Entelos win simulation patents. Bio-IT World, 26 January. URL (accessed October 2008):
  76. Stallman R. (2007). Why ‘open source’ misses the point of free software. Philosophy of the GNU Project, Free Software Foundation, 24 September. URL (accessed October 2008):
  77. Schaffer S. (2003). Enlightenment brought down to earth. History of Science, 41(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thackray A. (Ed.) (1998). Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences. Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  79. Sharp L.A. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 287–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Slaughter S., & Rhoades G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialisation of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(3), 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Uehling M.D. (2003). Model patient. Bio-IT World 15 December. URL (accessed October 2008)
  82. Van Regenmortel M.H.V. (2004). Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology. EMBO Reports, 5(11), 1016–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Westerhoof H.V., & Kell D.B. (2007). The methodologies of systems biology. In Boogerd F., Bruggeman F.J., Hofmeyr J.-H.S., & Westerhoff H.V. (Eds.), Systems biology: Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  84. Wynne B. (2005). Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Calvert
    • 1
  1. 1.ESRC Innogen Centre, Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation (ISSTI), University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons’ HallEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations