Proprietary Interests and Collaboration in Stem Cell Science: Avoiding Anticommons, Countering Canalyzation

  • Matthew Herder
Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)


In this chapter I explore how proprietary interests and commercialization norms can impede collaboration in stem cell science. I begin by outlining three layers of property in stem cell science—stem cell data, stem cell materials, and stem cell patenting—and explain how they are intertwined in practice. I then present two stem cell research initiatives, the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium (CSCC) and Stem Cells for Safer Medicines (SC4SM). Using two conceptual frames, the “tragedy of the anticommons” and “patent canalyzation,” I analyze the extent to which the CSCC and SC4SM appear to address proprietary or commercialization-related impediments to collaboration. Whereas the anticommons frame, and empirical methodologies it has spawned to date, tends to capture costs imposed upon the scientific fields as a whole, patent canalyzation focuses on the individual scientist, hypothesizing that patenting and other commercialization behaviours may (re)constitute the scientific self. The chapter concludes by highlighting three intellectual property-related best practices intended to facilitate collaboration in stem cell science.


Stem cells Patents Commercialization Anticommons Data sharing 


  1. 1.
    Matthews DJH, Donovan P, Harris J, Lovell-Badge R, Savulescu J, Faden R. Integrity in international stem cell research collaborations. Science 2006; 313:921–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winickoff DE, Saha K, Graff GD. Opening stem cell research and development: A policy proposal for the management of data, intellectual property, and ethics. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2009; 9:52–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, Waknitz MA, Swiergiel JJ, Marshall VS, Jones JM. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998; 282:1145–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM. Working through the patent problem. Science 2003; 299:1021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C. Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 2007; 36:1184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caulfield T, Ogbogur U, Murdoch C, Einsiedel E. Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community. Regen Med 2008; 3:483–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ÓConnor, S. The use of MTAs to control commercialization of stem cell diagnostics and therapeutics. Berkeley Technol Law J 2006; 21:1017–54.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lei Z, Juneja R, Wright BD. Patents versus patenting: Implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nat Biotechnol 2009; 27:36–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, Antosiewicz-Bourget J, Frane JL, Tian S et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007; 318:191720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131:86172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cyranoski D. Japan fast-tracks stem-cell patent. Nature 2008; 455:269. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vrtovec KT, Scott CT. Patenting pluripotence: The next battle for stem cell intellectual property. Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26:3935.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    United States, 37 C.F.R. § 1.52(b)(ii).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stephenson EL, Braude PR, Mason C. International community consensus standard for reporting derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines. Regen Med 2007; 2:349–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Hinxton Group, an International Consortium on Stem Cells, Ethics & Law. (2006). Transnational Cooperation in Stem Cell Research. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  16. 16.
    Cell Stem Cell, Information for Authors. (2009). Accessed 23 October 2009.
  17. 17.
    Merton RK. Priorities in scientific discovery. Am Sociol Rev 1957; 22:635–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisenberg RS, Rai AK. Harnessing and sharing the benefits of state-sponsored research: Intellectual property rights and data sharing in California’s stem cell initiative. Berkeley Technol Law J 2006; 21:1187214.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    United States, National Institutes of Health. (2009). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Policy under Former President Bush (August 9, 2001–March 9, 2009). Accessed 23 October 2009.
  20. 20.
    United States, Presidential Documents. (2009). Executive Order 13505 of March 9, 2009, Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells, 74 Fed. Reg. 10667. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  21. 21.
    Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. (2007). Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Changes Stem Cell Policies to Encourage Greater Academic, Industry Collaboration, WARF NEWS, Jan. 23, 2007. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  22. 22.
    Fitt R. New guidance on the patentability of embryonic stem cell patents in Europe. Nat Biotechnol 2009; 27:3389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boman BM, Wicha MS. Cancer stem cells: A step toward the cure. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:27959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bergman K, Graff GD. The global stem cell patent landscape: Implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25:41924.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998; 280:698701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heller MA. (2008). The gridlock economy: How too much ownership wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives. Philadelphia: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    United States, National Research Council. (2006). Reaping the benefits of genomic and proteomic research: Intellectual property rights, innovation, and public health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murray F, Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J Econ Behav Organ 2007; 63:64887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang KG, Murray FE (2008). Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  30. 30.
    Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA. Academic patents and material transfer agreements: Substitutes or complements? J Technol Trans 2007; 32:15772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waddington CH. (1939). An introduction to modern genetics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yamanaka S. Elite and stochastic models for induced pluripotent stem cell generation. Nature 2009; 460:4952.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    David PA. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 1985; 75:3327.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ioannidis JP, Gwinn M, Little J, Higgins JP, Bernstein JL, Boffetta P et al. A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology. Nat Genet 2006; 38:35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hirschhorn JN, Lohmueller K, Byrne E, Hirschhorn K. A comprehensive review of genetic association studies. Genet Med 2002; 4:4561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liddell K, Hogarth S, Melzer D, Zimmern RL. Patents as incentives for translational and evaluative research: The case of genetic tests and their improved clinical performance. Intellect Property Q 2008; 3:286327.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thursby JG, Thursby MC. University licensing. Oxf Rev Econ Pol 2007; 23:62039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stuart TE, Ding WW. When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. Am J Sociol 2006; 112:97144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cosell C, Agrawal A. Have university knowledge flows narrowed? Evidence from patent data. Res Policy 2009; 38:113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bubela T, Strotmann A, Adams R, Morrison S. Commercialization and Collaboration: Competing Policies in Publicly Funded Stem Cell Research? Cell Stem Cell 2010; 7:25–30.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Herder M. Patents and the progress of personalized medicine: Biomarkers research as lens. Ann Health Law 2009; 18:187230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cancer Stem Cell Consortium. (2008). About Us. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  43. 43.
    United Kingdom, UK Stem Cell Initiative. (2005) Report & Recommendations. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  44. 44.
    Cancer Stem Cell Consortium. (2008). Scientific Strategic Plan 2009–2014. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  45. 45.
    Cancer Stem Cell Consortium. (2007). Position paper submitted by John A. Hassell & Catriona Jamieson. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  46. 46.
    California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. (2009). CIRM Disease Team Research Award. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  47. 47.
    Stem Cells for Safer Medicines. (2007). About. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  48. 48.
    Stem Cells for Safer Medicines. (2007). Background Briefing.­downloads/SC4SM-QA.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  49. 49.
    Stem Cells for Safer Medicines. (2007). Welcome to Stem Cells for Safer Medicines. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  50. 50.
    Stem Cells for Safer Medicines. (2007). Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  51. 51.
    California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. (2007). Adopted CIRM Regulations:  Chapter 4 – Intellectual Property and Revenue Sharing Requirements for For-Profit Organizations. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, § 100400-10. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  52. 52.
    California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. (2006). Adopted CIRM Regulations:  Chapter 3 – Intellectual Property Requirements for Non-Profit Organizations. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, § 100300-10. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  53. 53.
    Wilson C, Schulz S, Waldman SA. Biomarker development, commercialization, and regulation: Individualization of medicine lost in translation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 81:1535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    United States, President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology. (2008). Priorities for Personalized Medicine. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  55. 55.
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Project. Human Subjects Protection and Data Access Policies. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  56. 56.
    International Cancer Genomics Consortium. (2008). Data Release Policies. Accessed 23 October 2009.
  57. 57.
    Gitter DM. Resolving the open source paradox in biotechnology: A proposal for a revised open source policy for publicly funded genomic databases. Houst Law Rev 2007; 43:1475521.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eisenberg RS. Patents and data-sharing in public science. Ind Corp Change 2006; 15:101331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    United States, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. (2004). Best Practices for the Licensing of Genomic Inventions, 69 Fed. Reg. 67747.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Herder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BioethicsDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations