Whither the Research Anticommons?

Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)


Fifteen years ago, the “tragedy of the anticommons” article warned that excessive patenting of biotech products and research methods could deter rather than stimulate invention, but little evidence was offered. Here, subsequent changes in patent law, public research support, and surveys of researchers are summarized. Results indicate the anticipated anticommons has not materialized significantly, and while ongoing monitoring is warranted, declining public research funding may necessitate more patenting to stimulate private investment.


  1. Adelman, D.E., and K.L. DeAngelis. 2007. Patent metrics: The mismeasure of innovation in the biotech patent debate (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06–10). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Rogers College of Law.Google Scholar
  2. Cassedy, C., and J. Love. 2014. Timeline for Fabrazyme, Replagal. Washington, DC: Knowledge Ecology International. Available on the World Wide Web: Scholar
  3. Cho, M.K., S. Illangasekare, M.A. Weaver, D.G.B. Leonard, and J.F. Merz. 2003. Effects of Patents and Licenses on the Provision of Clinical Genetic Testing Services. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 5: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook-Deegan, R., and C. Heaney. 2010. Patents in genomics and human genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 11: 383–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook-Deegan, R. 2008. Gene patents. In From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns (Chapter 15), ed. M. Crowley. The Hastings Center: Garrison, NY. Available on the World Wide Web: Scholar
  6. Crichton, M. 2007. Patenting Life (Op-Ed). The New York Times.Google Scholar
  7. Federal Trade Commission. 2009. Emerging Health Care Issues: Follow-on Biologic Drug Competition (FTC Report). Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.Google Scholar
  8. Feldbaum, C.B. 2002. Letter to the Honorable Lynn Rivers. Washington, DC: Biotechnology Industry Organization. Available on the World Wide Web: Scholar
  9. Gillene, D. 2004. Chiron relaxes patent licenses. Los Angeles Times.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, B.H., and D. Harhoff. 2012. Recent Research on the Economics of Patents (Working Paper 17773). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen, S.A., M.R. Kisielewski, and J.L. Asher. 2007. Intellectual Property Experiences in the United States Scientific Community: A Report by the Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. Washington, DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science.:Available at
  12. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heller, M.A., and R.S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280: 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holman, C.M. 2007. The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation. UMKC Law Review 76: 295–361.Google Scholar
  15. Huys, I., N. Berthels, G. Matthijs, and G. Van Overwalle. 2009. Legal Uncertainty in the Area of Genetic Diagnostic Testing. Nature Biotechnology 27: 903–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). n.d. Are Private Companies Involved in the Golden Rice Project? [website]. Los Baños, Philippines. Available on the World Wide Web:
  17. Jensen, R.A. 2009. Patent races. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, ed. S.N. Durlauf and L.E. Blume. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Jenson, K., and F. Murray. 2005. The Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome. Science 310: 239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, J. 2010. Petition to use Authority under the Bayh-Dole Act to Promote Access to Fabryzyme (Agalsidase Beta), an Invention Supported by and Licensed by the National Institutes of Health under Grant No. DK-34045. Concordia, MO: Fabry Support and Information Group. Available on the World Wide Web: Scholar
  20. Kelley, T. 2012. Shire Drops after Pulling U.S. Application for Replagal. Bloomberg. Available on the World Wide Web:
  21. Kryder, R.D., S.P. Kowalski, and A.F. Krattiger. 2000. The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of Pro-vitamin A Rice (Golden Rice): A Preliminary Freedom-to-Operate Review (ISAAA Issue Brief No. 20–1000). Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).Google Scholar
  22. National Institutes of Health (NIH). n.d. NIH Almanac. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  23. Nelsen, L. 2007. Evaluating Inventions From Research Institutions. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger et al., 795–804. Oxford, UK: Centre for the Management of Intellectual Property in Health Research and Development (MIHR) and Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA).Google Scholar
  24. Organization for the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices: Evidence and Policies (Workshop Report). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available on the World Wide Web: Scholar
  25. Potrykus, I. 2011. The ‘Golden Rice’ tale. AgBioWorld. Available on the World Wide Web:
  26. Rimmer, M. 2004. The Race to Patent the SARS Virus: The TRIPS Agreement and Access to Essential Medicines. Melbourne Journal of International Law 5 (2): 335–374.Google Scholar
  27. Shotwell, S.L. 2007. Field-of-Use Licensing. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger et al., 1113–1120. Oxford: MIHR and PIPRA.Google Scholar
  28. US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2014. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (Section 2404). USPTO: Alexandria, VA. Available at Scholar
  29. Walsh, J.P., A. Arora, and W.M. Cohen. 2003. Effects of Research Tool Patents and Licensing on Biomedical Innovation. In Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, ed. W.M. Cohen and S.A. Merrill. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Walsh, J.P., W.M. Cohen, and C. Cho. 2007. Where Excludability Matters: Material versus Intellectual Property in Academic Biomedical Research. Research Policy 36: 1184–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, H.L. 2010. Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Human Genome. Journal of Political Economics 121 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wyatt, E. 2014. Legislation to Protect Against ‘Patent Trolls’ is Shelved (Business Day section). The New York Times.Google Scholar
  33. Yarchoan, M. 2012. The History of Zidovudine (AZT): Partnership and Conflict. ScribD 4.Google Scholar
  34. Yeh, B.T. 2013. An Overview of the ‘Patent Trolls’ Debate. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available on the World Wide Web: Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations