Abstract
rate and direction of progress in biology is constrained by available tools; a novel tool can set the field on a new and more productive course, but only if creative scientists are free to use it. The history of 1⁄4-glucuronidase (GUS) reporter genes illustrates the great impact a technology can have when it is novel, useful, and globally available on reasonable terms. Now Jefferson’s energy is directed at restoring biotechnologists’ global freedom to innovate, by “inventing around” essential, but proprietarily owned, research tools, and trying to ensure that the new alternatives remain freely available for use and improvement. A key part of his program is the development of BiOS, an institutional innovation that applies aspects of the open source software model to biotechnology. Although the jury is still out on the effectiveness and sustainability of BiOS, Jefferson’s detailed account provides a good foundation for initial analysis. Perhaps more important than his discussion of the BiOS model itself, however, is Jefferson’s articulation of the intellectual property problems faced by innovators in biotechnology who want to see their efforts make a difference to end-users globally. What he has to say demands the attention of the many lawyers and economists who see no problems with intellectual property protection in biotechnology. Open source is currently one among several approaches designed to encourage broad based participation in research in biotechnology in the face of the restrictions imposed by intellectual property rights on key enabling technologies. Open source in biology is a work in progress, highly experimental and controversial. This essay seeks to reach beyond the rhetoric of openness and transparency, to consider some of the challenges that confront the BiOS project, and some of the opporSara Boettiger and Brian D. Wright
Published Version (
Free)
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 call