Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 115–139 | Cite as

The BioBrick™ road

  • Luis Campos
Original Article

Abstract

Matters of intellectual property (IP) have been a characteristic concern of synthetic biology since its very birth as ‘open-source biology’. Although questions of IP in synthetic biology have intensified in recent years, little scholarly attention has yet been paid to the details of how such novel IP issues were actually first discussed and developed. In this article, I argue that a renewed orientation to specific empirical detail, to the bumpy road of untidy micropolitical stories and their piecemeal contributions – to the messy details of history – is essential in properly understanding the present IP landscape of this most contemporary of efforts to engineer life. Rather than coming out of any direct desire to gain legal clarity, concern for IP initially emerged organically out of larger discussions about the intended nature of the synthetic biology research community and its norms of openness and sharing. The goal of making biology ‘easier to engineer’ through the production of standard biological parts (BioBricks) has raised a number of these concerns in sharpest form. The emergence and development of IP issues in synthetic biology is thus best understood in the context of the ecology of practices and debates that have characterized the field in recent years.

Keywords

synthetic biology intellectual property BioBricks iGEM registry of standard biological parts Drew Endy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article was first presented at a Workshop of the Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation (CSynBI) on ‘Synthetic Biology and Open Source: Normative Cultures of Biology’, organized by the BIOS Centre on 23–24 September 2010 and funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

References

  1. Aldhous, P. (2006) Redesigning life. New Scientist 190 (2552): 43–47.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, D et al (2006) Engineering life: Building a FAB for biology. Scientific American 294 (6): 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BioBricks Foundation (BBF). (2009) The BioBricks foundation: standards/technical/formats, http://openwetware.org/index.php?title=The_BioBricks_Foundation:Standards/Technical/Formats&oldid=289752, accessed 20 February 2012.
  4. Campos, L. (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli-Mitra and H. de Vriend, (eds.) Synthetic Biology, The Technoscience and Its Societal Consequence. Berlin: Springer, pp. 5–21.Google Scholar
  5. Campos, L. (2012) Outsiders and in-laws: Drew Endy and the case of synthetic biology. In: O. Harman and M. Dietrich (eds.) Biology Outside the Box: Boundary Crossers and Innovation in Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, R. (2006) Live from synthetic biology 2.0, Part II, http://www.synthesis.cc/2006/05/live-from-synthetic-biology-20-part-ii.html, accessed 20 February 2012.
  7. Carlson, R. (2007) On the use of the word ‘Biobrick’, http://www.synthesis.cc/2007/10/, accessed 20 February 2012.
  8. Clark, L.J. (2004) Synthetic biology applies engineering approach to biological components. Engineering Our World, MIT School of Engineering, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/synthetic-bio.html, accessed 20 February 2012.
  9. Creating the Organisms that Evolution Forgot: An ‘Any Questions?’ Debate on Synthetic Biology. (2009) BIOS public debate. Old Theatre, Old Building, London School of Economics, 26 November.Google Scholar
  10. ETC Group. (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: An introduction to synthetic biology, http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/602/01/synbioreportweb.pdf, accessed 20 March 2012.
  11. Hotz, R.L. (2011) Drew Endy, bio-engineer: The ‘Next Steve Jobs’? The Wall Street Journal, 7 October, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576617563914681284.html, accessed 20 March 2012.
  12. Katsnelson, A. (2010) DNA factory launches. The Scientist, 21 January, http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57090/, accessed 20 March 2012.
  13. Knight, T.F. (2003) Idempotent vector design for standard assembly of BioBricks. MIT Synthetic Biology Working Group Technical Reports, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/21168, accessed 20 February 2012.
  14. Open Biotechnology & the BioBrick Public Agreement. (2011) http://openwetware.org/images/f/fd/Why_the_BPAv1.pdf, accessed 20 February 2012.
  15. Peccoud, J et al (2008) Targeted development of registries of biological parts. PLoS One 3 (7): e2671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillips, I. and Silver, P.A. (2006) A new BioBrick assembly strategy designed for facile protein engineering. MIT Synthetic Biology Working Group Technical Reports, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/32535, accessed 20 February 2012.
  17. 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
  18. Rai, A.K. and Kumar, S. (2007) Synthetic biology: The intellectual property puzzle. Texas Law Review 85 (7): 1745–1768.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Campos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HistoryUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations