, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 169–187 | Cite as

Ownership and sharing in synthetic biology: A ‘diverse ecology’ of the open and the proprietary?

  • Jane Calvert
Original Article


Synthetic biology is in the process of inventing itself and its ownership regimes. There are currently two dominant approaches to ownership and sharing in the field. The work of the J. Craig Venter Institute is grounded in molecular biology and in gene patenting. Parts-based approaches to synthetic biology, in contrast, are inspired by engineering, open source software and distributed innovation, and they are building new communities to help further this agenda. Despite these differences, the two approaches make very similar use of informational and computational metaphors. They both also have a place in a vision for the future of synthetic biology as a ‘diverse ecology’ of the open and the proprietary. It remains to be seen whether such a diverse ecology will be sustainable, whether synthetic biology will go down the patenting route taken by previous biotechnologies or whether different forms of ownership and sharing will emerge. Which path is taken will depend on the success of synthetic biology in achieving both its technical objectives and its social innovations.


synthetic biology intellectual property open source distributed innovation informational metaphors 



I am very grateful to all those who have commented on various iterations of this article at workshops in Amsterdam, Leeds, Singapore and London (CSynBI/BIOS). I would like to thank three anonymous referees and the editors of this special issue for their insightful comments. This work was carried out as part of the programme of the ESRC Innogen Centre, University of Edinburgh.


  1. Allsup, T.L. (2011) ACLU announces decision to pursue Myriad in Supreme Court. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology,, accessed 22 January 2012.
  2. Arkin, A.P. and Fletcher, D.A. (2006) Fast, cheap and somewhat in control. Genome Biology 7 (8): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO. (2010) United States District Court Southern District of New York, No. 09 Civ. 4515 (March 29, 2010).Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, S.B. and Dupré, J.A. (2008) Genomes and What to Make of Them. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benkler, Y. (2002) Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the nature of the firm. The Yale Law Journal 112 (3): 369–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billings, L. and Endy, D. (2010) Synthetic biology. Cribsheet &num16. SEED Magazine 21 April,, accessed 15 March 2012.
  7. Bobe, J. (2010) DIYBio: Origin, activities and scenarios for the future. Presentation at BioSecurity: How synthetic biology is changing the way we look at biology and biological threats, 11 March, Woodrow Wilson Centre, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  8. Bonaccorsi, A., Calvert, J. and Joly, P.-B. (2011) From protecting texts to protecting objects in biotech and software. A tale of changes of ontological assumptions in intellectual property protection. Economy and Society 40 (4): 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonaccorsi, A. and Rossi, C. (2003) Why Open Source software can succeed. Research Policy 32 (7): 1243–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bostanci, A. and Calvert, J. (2008) Invisible genomes: The genomics revolution and patenting practice. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39 (1): 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brent, R. (2004) A partnership between biology and engineering. Nature Biotechnology 22 (10): 1211–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bult, C.J. et al (1996) Complete genome sequence of the methanogenic archaeon, Methanococcus jannaschii. Science 273 (5278): 1058–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Calvert, J. (2008) The commodification of emergence: Systems biology, synthetic biology and intellectual property. BioSocieties 3 (4): 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calvert, J. (forthcoming) Collaboration as a research method? Navigating social scientific involvement in synthetic biology. In: I. van de Poel, M. Gorman, D. Schuurbiers and N. Doorn (eds.) Opening up the Lab. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Calvert, J. and Joly, P.-B. (2011) How did the gene become a chemical compound? Shifting ontologies of the gene and the patenting of DNA. Social Science Information 50 (2): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlson, R. (2001) Biological Technology in 2050 Published in IEEE Spectrum. May, as Open-Source Biology and its Impact on Industry,, accessed 3 May 2011.
  18. Carlson, R. (2010) Biology is Technology: The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlson, R. and Brent, R. (2000) DARPA open source biology letter,, accessed 21 May 2011.
  20. Chalfie, M. and Prasher, D. (1996) Uses of green-fluorescent protein. United States Patent no. 5,491,184. Issued 13 February.Google Scholar
  21. Chan, L.Y., Kosuri, S. and Endy, D. (2005) Refactoring bacteriophage T7. Molecular Systems Biology 1 Article Number: 2005.0018.Google Scholar
  22. Chin, J.W. (2006) Modular approaches to expanding the functions of living matter. Nature Chemical Biology 2 (6): 304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohn, D. (2005) Open-Source Biology Evolves. Wired, 17 January,, accessed 31 May 2011.
  24. Conley, J.M. and Makowski, R. (2003) Back to the future: Rethinking the product of nature doctrine as a barrier to biotechnology patents. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 85: 301–334 (Part I), 371–398 (Part II).Google Scholar
  25. Cook-Deegan, R. (1994) The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome Project. New York and London: W.W. Norten & Co.Google Scholar
  26. Cornish, W.R., Llewellyn, M. and Adcock, M. (2003) Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Genetics: A Study into the Impact and Management of Intellectual Property Rights within the Healthcare Sector. Cambridge, UK: Public Health Genetics Unit.Google Scholar
  27. Council of the European Union. (2000) Presidency Conclusions. Lisbon European Council, 23–24 March,, accessed 31 May 2011.
  28. Cowell, M. (2010) DIYbio: Let's play with biotechnology. Presentation at the University of Edinburgh, 26 March.Google Scholar
  29. Demaine, L.J. and Fellmeth, A.X. (2002) Reinventing the double helix: A novel and nonobvious reconceptualization of the biotechnology patent. Stanford Law Review 55 (2): 303–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dupré, J. (2004) Understanding contemporary genomics. Perspectives on Science 12 (3): 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dyson, F. (2007) Our Biotech future. New York Review of Books 54 (12): 4–8.Google Scholar
  32. Eisenberg, R.S. (2000) Re-examining the role of patents in appropriating the value of DNA sequences. Emory Law Journal 49 (3): 783–799.Google Scholar
  33. Endy, D. (2009) Open biotechnology and the BioBrick Public Agreement,, accessed 30 May 2011.
  34. Endy, D. (2010) Overview and Context of the Science and Technology of Synthetic Biology. Presentation to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 8 July,, accessed 20 March 2010.
  35. ETC Group. (2007) Extreme Monopoly: Venter's Team Makes Vast Patent Grab on Synthetic Genomes. ETC Group News Release, 8 December,, accessed 29 May 2011.
  36. Fleischmann, R.D. et al (1995) Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science 269 (5223): 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fraser, C.M. et al (1995) The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science 270 (5235): 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibson, D.G. et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized Genome. Science 329 (5987): 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gibson, D.G., Young, L., Chuang, R.Y., Venter, J.C., Hutchison, C.A. and Smith, H.O. (2009) Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nature Methods 6 (5): 343–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Glass, J.I., Smith, H.O., Hutchinson III, C.A., Alperovich, N. and Assad-Garcia, N. (2007) ‘Minimal bacterial genome’ United States Patent Application No. 11/546, 364. Filed 12 October 2006.Google Scholar
  41. Haraway, D.J. (1994) A game of cat's cradle: Science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies. Configurations 2 (1): 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hartwell, L.H., Hopfield, J.J., Leibler, S. and Murray, A.W. (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402 (6761): C47–C52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haseloff, J. (2010) Designer life: Scotland's next industrial revolution? Panel discussion at Edinburgh Science Festival, 13 April.Google Scholar
  44. Helmreich, S. (2008) Species of Biocapital. Science as Culture 17 (4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Henkel, J. and Maurer, S.M. (2009) Parts, property and sharing. Nature Biotechnology 27 (12): 1095–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holden, A.L. (2002) The SNP consortium: Summary of a private consortium effort to develop an applied map of the human genome. BioTechniques 32 (26): S22–S26.Google Scholar
  47. Jackson, J. (2010) Enlightenment 2.0: Unleashing the Open Science Revolution,, accessed 6 July 2010.
  48. Johnson, R. (2009) Synthetic biology: Challenges of ownership, access & rights. Presentation at Symposium on Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology. National Academies’ Keck Center; 9–10 July, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  49. Joly, P., Rip, A. and Callon, M. (2010) Reinventing innovation. In: M. Arentsen, V. van Rossum and B. Steenge (eds.) Governance of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar, pp. 19–32.Google Scholar
  50. Jones, M. (2010) House Committee Hears from Venter, Others on Synthetic Biology. GenomeWeb Daily News, 28 May,, accessed 31 May 2011.
  51. Kay, L.E. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Keller, E.F. (2000) The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kelty, C.M. (2005) Geeks, social imaginaries, and recursive publics. Cultural Anthropology 20 (2): 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kelty, C.M. (2010) Outlaw, hackers, victorian amateurs: Diagnosing public participation in the life sciences today. Journal of Science Communication 9 (1): C03.Google Scholar
  55. Kwok, R. (2010) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463 (7279): 288–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ledford, H. (2010) Garage biotech: Life hackers. Nature 467 (7316): 650–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lessig, L. (2001) The Internet under Siege. Foreign Policy 127 (November–December): 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Luisi, P.L., Ferri, F. and Stano, P. (2006) Approaches to semi-synthetic minimal cells: A review. Naturwissenschaften 93 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lynch, M. (2007) The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (10): 803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maurer, S.M. (2009) Before it's too late: Why synthetic biologists need an open-parts collaboration – and how to build one. EMBO Reports 10 (8): 806–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mitchell, R., Dori, Y.J. and Kuldell, N.H. (2011) Experiential engineering through iGEM: An undergraduate summer competition in synthetic biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology 20 (2): 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morange, M. (2009) A new revolution? The place of systems biology and synthetic biology in the history of biology. EMBO Reports 10 (1): S50–S53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moss, L. (2003) What Genes Can’t Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nature Biotechnology. (2007) Editorial: Patenting the parts. Nature Biotechnology 25 (8): 822.Google Scholar
  65. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2002) The Ethics of Patenting DNA. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  66. O'Malley, M., Bostanci, A. and Calvert, J. (2005) Whole Genome patenting. Nature Reviews Genetics 6 (6): 502–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O'Malley, M., Powell, A., Davies, J. and Calvert, J. (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays 30 (1): 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Open Science Summit. (2010) Open Science Summit 2010: Updating the social contract for science. Berkeley, 29–31 July,, accessed 6 July 2010.
  69. Oye, K. and Wellhausen, R. (2009) The intellectual commons and property in synthetic biology. In: M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra and H. de Vriend (eds.) Synthetic Biology: The Technoscience and Its Societal Consequences. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peterson, T. (2010) Open Source/IP Discussion. Presentation at the Synberc Retreat. Emeryville, 29 February–2 March,, accessed 30 May 2011.
  71. Pollack, A. (2001) Scientists are starting to add letters to life's alphabet. New York Times 24th July: F1–F2.Google Scholar
  72. Pottage, A. (2009) Protocell patents: Between modularity and emergence. In: M. Bedau and C. Parke (eds.) The Ethics of Protocells: Moral and Social Implications of Creating Life in the Laboratory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Pottage, A. and Sherman, B. (2007) Organisms and manufactures: On the history of plant inventions. Melbourne University Law Review 31 (2): 539–568.Google Scholar
  74. Rahaman, M. (2011) Biotechnology, neoliberal politics of life and the spirit of biocapital. Social Studies of Science 41 (5): 759–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rai, A.K. (1999) Intellectual property rights in biotechnology: Addressing new technology. Wake Forest Law Review 34 (3): 827–847.Google Scholar
  76. Rai, A.K. (2009) Synthetic biology: Innovation and open source. Presentation at Woodrow Wilson Centre meeting on Open Source; 17 June, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  77. Rai, A.K. and Boyle, J. (2007) Synthetic biology: Caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. PLoS Biology 5 (3): e58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Raymond, E.S. (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar Version 3.0,, accessed 22 May 2011.
  79. Rettberg, R. (2009) Evidence to the US National Academies, Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology, 10 July, National Academies of Science: Washington DC.Google Scholar
  80. Rheinberger, H.-J. (2000) Gene concepts: Fragments from the perspective of molecular biology. In: P. Beurton, R. Falk and H.-J. Rheinberger (eds.) The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Robbins, P. (2009) Reflexive boundaries: The development of the BioBrick approach to synthetic biology. Presentation at the Society for Social Studies of Science Annual Meeting; 28–31 October, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  82. Rose, N. (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Rose, N. (2007) Molecular biopolitics, somatic ethics and the spirit of biocapital. Social Theory & Health 5 (1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sample, I. (2010) Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. The Guardian, 20 May,, accessed 22 May 2011.
  85. Sarkar, S. (1996) Biological information: A skeptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology. In: S. Sarkar (ed.) The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 187–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sauro, H.M. (2008) Modularity Defined. Molecular Systems Biology, Article Number 4: 166, doi:10.1038/msb.2008.3.Google Scholar
  87. Shreeve, J. (2004) The Genome War. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  88. Smolke, C.D. (2009) Building outside of the box: iGEM and the BioBricks foundation. Nature Biotechnology 27 (12): 1099–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Specter, M. (2009) A life of its own? Where will synthetic biology lead us? The New Yorker, 28 September,, accessed 22 May 2011.
  90. Strathern, M. (2006) A community of critics? Thoughts on new knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12 (1): 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sunder Rajan, K. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Torrance, A.W. (2010) Synthesizing law for synthetic biology. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11 (2): 629–665.Google Scholar
  93. Venter, J.C., Smith, H.O. and Hutchinson III, C.A. (2007) Synthetic genomes. United States Patent Application No. 11/635,355. Publication date 15 November.Google Scholar
  94. Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  95. Walby, C. (2001) Code unknown: Histories of the Gene. Social Studies of Science 31 (5): 779–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Calvert
    • 1
  1. 1.The ESRC Innogen Centre, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons’ Hall, High School YardsEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations