Abstract
Material transfer agreements exist to facilitate the exchange of materials and associated data between researchers as well as to protect the interests of the researchers and their institutions. But this dual mandate can be a source of frustration for researchers, creating administrative burdens and slowing down collaborations. We argue here that in most cases in pre-competitive research, a simple agreement would suffice; the more complex agreements and mechanisms for their negotiation should be reserved for cases where the risks posed to the institution and the potential commercial value of the research reagents is high.
Highlights
A material transfer agreement (MTA) is a type of legally enforceable contract employed by research institutions and companies to set the terms under which their materials and associated data may be obtained and used by others (Box 1) [1,2]
MTAs have a bad reputation among researchers for being overly complex and, in practice, hindering the exchange of research reagents
Litigation is a metric for the value of a patented invention [41] or the value of a contract, with real estate, employment, and construction contracts commonly litigated. This begs the question, do MTAs have any value as measured by the number of cases of litigation? When we searched for variations of the phrase “material transfer agreement” in the Westlaw US Premier Service; Westlaw’s United Kingdom (UK) Law database; and the EUR-Lex database for European cases, we found only cases, and one additional case in the Lex-Machina database, which covers intellectual property litigation that has been filed in a state or federal non-appellate level court [42]
Summary
A material transfer agreement (MTA) is a type of legally enforceable contract employed by research institutions and companies to set the terms under which their materials and associated data may be obtained and used by others (Box 1) [1,2] These agreements provide a mechanism to protect the interests of the owners of discoveries and inventions, while promoting data and material sharing in the research community. Because of JAX’s reputation as a public archive, it can set terms and conditions on deposit that foster a culture of sharing in the community These terms enable JAX to distribute mouse strains to academic and not-for-profit researchers under a simple notification that the mice are for research purposes and are not for sale or transfer to third parties without permission [32,33]. The lessons learned from materials and data sharing in the mouse research community and from the rare instances where research relationships failed and litigation ensued suggest some core principles upon which to build the MTAs of the future
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
