Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9 technology is reshaping the way scientists conduct research in genetic engineering. It is predicted to revolutionise not only the fields of medicine, biology, agriculture and industry but, much like all revolutionary technologies of the past, the way humans live. Given the anticipated and already seen benefits of CRISPR-Cas 9 in different areas of human life, this new technology may be defined as a true breakthrough scientific discovery. The article presents several challenges connected with various dimensions of the CRISPR-Cas 9 patent landscape. The central argument is that today the biggest challenge is finding a intermediary way that ensures a balance between providing sufficient openness for the further progress of basic research in CRISPR-Cas 9 such as ‘niche’ areas of the latest genetic engineering and adequate intellectual property rights to incentivise its commercialisation and application. The article contends the endeavours by academic scientific institutions to arrive at short-term benefits of the new CRISPR-Cas 9 technology do not constitute such an intermediary way, especially when the CRISPR-Cas 9 patent landscape is viewed as part of a series of controversial bioethical discussions that have been underway for over 40 years.
Highlights
CRISPR-Cas9 technology is a genome-editing approach that is changing the field of genetic engineering
Since CRISPR-Cas9 was discovered in 2012, applications based on it are found in the areas of diagnostics, creating complex animal disease models, drug resistance, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) storage, etc
If we look at history, the modification of living organisms with genetic engineering in the 1970s and 1980s opened up new possibilities for biotechnology to develop
Summary
CRISPR-Cas technology is a genome-editing approach that is changing the field of genetic engineering. The strategy of non-exclusive licensing and cross-licensing pools used by Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics and other ‘surrogate’ companies formed by the universities heralds a new policy in the IPR landscape of genetic engineering Even where such surrogate companies succeed in creating a set of such interlocking licence agreements, they cannot stop the risk of a slowdown in the advance of basic research because they are oriented to short-term profit rather than, say, the free flow of information and public access to knowledge. While American experts support the idea of the science going forward before a general consensus based on deliberation that this approach is medically warranted, the academics from Europe suggest a worldwide moratorium on altering the genome to produce changes that could be passed on to future generations It is clear these differences at the global level will probably influence the prospects of future progress with the new CRISPR-Cas technology. There is no doubt that the BioBrick model could be seen as a vanguard vision towards new solutions in the social regulation of new and emerging technologies at large whose benefits will be seen at some stage in the future
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
