Ownership and sharing in synthetic biology: A ‘diverse ecology’ of the open and the proprietary?
- 64 Downloads
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.
Keywordssynthetic 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.
- Allsup, T.L. (2011) ACLU announces decision to pursue Myriad in Supreme Court. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, http://www.ncjolt.org/blog/2011/10/26/aclu-announces-decision-pursue-myriad-supreme-court, accessed 22 January 2012.
- 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
- Billings, L. and Endy, D. (2010) Synthetic biology. Cribsheet &num16. SEED Magazine 21 April, http://seedmagazine.com/images/uploads/16cribsheet.pdf, accessed 15 March 2012.
- 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
- Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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
- Carlson, R. (2001) Biological Technology in 2050 Published in IEEE Spectrum. May, as Open-Source Biology and its Impact on Industry, http://www.synthesis.cc/Biol_Tech_2050.pdf, accessed 3 May 2011.
- Carlson, R. and Brent, R. (2000) DARPA open source biology letter, http://www.synthesis.cc/DARPA_OSB_Letter.pdf, accessed 21 May 2011.
- Chalfie, M. and Prasher, D. (1996) Uses of green-fluorescent protein. United States Patent no. 5,491,184. Issued 13 February.Google Scholar
- Chan, L.Y., Kosuri, S. and Endy, D. (2005) Refactoring bacteriophage T7. Molecular Systems Biology 1 Article Number: 2005.0018.Google Scholar
- Cohn, D. (2005) Open-Source Biology Evolves. Wired, 17 January, http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66289, accessed 31 May 2011.
- 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
- Cook-Deegan, R. (1994) The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome Project. New York and London: W.W. Norten & Co.Google Scholar
- 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
- Council of the European Union. (2000) Presidency Conclusions. Lisbon European Council, 23–24 March, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm#b, accessed 31 May 2011.
- Cowell, M. (2010) DIYbio: Let's play with biotechnology. Presentation at the University of Edinburgh, 26 March.Google Scholar
- Dyson, F. (2007) Our Biotech future. New York Review of Books 54 (12): 4–8.Google Scholar
- 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
- Endy, D. (2009) Open biotechnology and the BioBrick Public Agreement, http://openwetware.org/images/f/fd/Why_the_BPAv1.pdf, accessed 30 May 2011.
- 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, http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/synthetic-biology/070810/overview-and-contextof-the-science-and-technology.html, accessed 20 March 2010.
- ETC Group. (2007) Extreme Monopoly: Venter's Team Makes Vast Patent Grab on Synthetic Genomes. ETC Group News Release, 8 December, http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETCNRextrememonopoly11_07.pdf, accessed 29 May 2011.
- 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
- Haseloff, J. (2010) Designer life: Scotland's next industrial revolution? Panel discussion at Edinburgh Science Festival, 13 April.Google Scholar
- 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
- Jackson, J. (2010) Enlightenment 2.0: Unleashing the Open Science Revolution, http://opensciencesummit.com/2010/05/12/enlightenment-2-0-unleashing-the-open-science-revolution-2/, accessed 6 July 2010.
- 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
- 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
- Jones, M. (2010) House Committee Hears from Venter, Others on Synthetic Biology. GenomeWeb Daily News, 28 May, http://www.genomeweb.com/node/941835?hq_e=el&hq_m=729875&hq_l=1&hq_v=91266e50c0, accessed 31 May 2011.
- Kay, L.E. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Keller, E.F. (2000) The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Moss, L. (2003) What Genes Can’t Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Nature Biotechnology. (2007) Editorial: Patenting the parts. Nature Biotechnology 25 (8): 822.Google Scholar
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2002) The Ethics of Patenting DNA. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
- Open Science Summit. (2010) Open Science Summit 2010: Updating the social contract for science. Berkeley, 29–31 July, http://opensciencesummit.com/about/, accessed 6 July 2010.
- Peterson, T. (2010) Open Source/IP Discussion. Presentation at the Synberc Retreat. Emeryville, 29 February–2 March, http://synberc.ercbot.com/retreat/2010_fall_retreat/OpenSourcePresentation_final.pdf, accessed 30 May 2011.
- Pollack, A. (2001) Scientists are starting to add letters to life's alphabet. New York Times 24th July: F1–F2.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rai, A.K. (1999) Intellectual property rights in biotechnology: Addressing new technology. Wake Forest Law Review 34 (3): 827–847.Google Scholar
- 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
- Raymond, E.S. (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar Version 3.0, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/, accessed 22 May 2011.
- 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
- 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
- Rose, N. (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Sample, I. (2010) Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. The Guardian, 20 May, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form, accessed 22 May 2011.
- Sauro, H.M. (2008) Modularity Defined. Molecular Systems Biology, Article Number 4: 166, doi:10.1038/msb.2008.3.Google Scholar
- Shreeve, J. (2004) The Genome War. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
- Specter, M. (2009) A life of its own? Where will synthetic biology lead us? The New Yorker, 28 September, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/28/090928fa_fact_specter, accessed 22 May 2011.
- Torrance, A.W. (2010) Synthesizing law for synthetic biology. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 11 (2): 629–665.Google Scholar
- 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
- Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar