Michael Geist law professor and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
e-commerce law at the
"Scientists believe that, contrary to the current consensus, proliferation
of IP protection has a strongly negative effect on research in their
disciplines. Our respondents' answers on the details of access problems are
highly consistent with those reported in the recent literature, but they
ultimately relate these problems to the proliferation of IP protection in
academia. . .
They attribute problems of delayed or blocked access to needed research
tools to material transfer agreements (MTAs). Academic administrators mandate
use of MTAs to protect the value of the IP rights held by their institutions or
to reduce their exposure to lawsuits by third parties. In short, the major impediment
to accessing research tools is not patents per se, but patenting as an
institutional imperative in the post-Bayh-Dole era.
As noted, the responses focus primarily on the barriers created by university promotion of IP protection through patenting and material transfer agreements. Scientists reported that these efforts result in numerous delays that impede the progress of research. Moreover, scientists express concern about the contractual restrictions on publication that come with these agreements that often cause signficant constaints on academic freedom. The article notes that these frustrations may help explain why agricultural biologists have become leaders in open source biology."
To read the article in Nature Biotechnology on the perceived effects of intellectual property protection for biological research click here.
