Voices From The Community
Barriers to research
Story by Tara Narwani/Illustration by Julie McLaughlin
Do patents prevent researchers from freely sharing their findings?
Ask a biomedical researcher in the United States or Canada if they're worried that patents on academic discoveries are interfering with the advancement of science, and the answer will likely be "yes".
Traditionally, the results of federally funded biomedical research were distributed widely and freely to the public for potential use in health-related industries. However, since the early 1980s U.S. universities increasingly have patented their biomedical discoveries with the hopes of developing them for commercial purposes.
As a result, concerns over the private control of basic research findings rose with the rate of patenting. Would biomedical innovation be compromised in this era of academic patents?
Dr. John Walsh, a professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, addressed this question at a recent seminar held by the University of Alberta Health Law Institute. In a survey of academic biomedical researchers, Dr. Walsh and his colleagues asked how many delayed or abandoned a project due to the existence of a patent. Only one percent of the respondents reported being delayed; none were forced to abandon their planned work.
"So, do these patents prevent people from doing the kind of projects they'd like to do? The answer is 'almost never'," says Dr. Walsh.
The reason may be that academics are not concerned with infringing patent rights. Only five percent of those surveyed regularly check for patents relevant to their field.
According to Dr. Walsh, these numbers make sense if you consider the costs of asserting patent rights against a university faculty member. From the perspective of the patent holder, legal fees are extremely high, and any financial compensation awarded is comparatively low. Furthermore, lawsuits have the effect of damaging relationships between the parties involved. For the patent holder, this could mean severing ties with a potential collaborator. In other words, "the costs of excluding someone from your patented research are really high," explains Walsh.
A more significant barrier to biomedical research than patents is that some researchers are unwilling to share their unpublished research inputs, such as equipment, techniques, or cell lines. When one researcher asks another for these types of materials, there are several compelling reasons why the request would be declined or ignored.
Because academic reputation and its associated economic rewards are built on publications, competition sometimes discourages researchers from sharing their scientific discoveries. "People are explicit about this," Dr. Walsh notes. "I'm not giving [my discovery] to you because I'm using it. If I give it to you, you'll use it and get the publication before me."
To determine the impact of this type of behaviour, Dr. Walsh asked each survey respondent whether they received the last item they had asked for from another researcher. Twenty percent did not. As a result, eight percent had to delay their research.
Excluding someone from accessing your unpublished research inputs is relatively easy. "Unlike the case of the patent where the owner of the input has to actively stop you from using it, in this case, in order for you to get [something you need], the owner of the input has to actively cooperate in giving it to you," says Dr. Walsh. "Exclusion is not nearly as costly."
Ultimately, although Dr. Walsh's study shows patents don't slow the pace of academic discovery to the degree once feared, there are clearly other barriers to the free exchange of academic knowledge and materials that require evaluation. For Dr. Walsh, that means several new questions need addressing. "What are the impacts of exclusion on the pace of science? Does it slow down because you can't get access? Does it speed up because you have more incentive, or does it broaden [scientific enterprise] because a lack of access drove you to work on other things?"