Intellectual property rights, standards and data exchange in systems biology

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have become a key concern for researchers and industry in basically all high‐tech sectors. IPRs regularly figure prominently in scientific journals and at scientific conferences and lead to dedicated workshops to increase the awareness and ”IPR savviness“ of scientists. In 2015, Biotechnology Journal published a report from an expert meeting on ”Synthetic Biology & Intellectual Property Rights“ organized by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation sponsored by the European Research Area Network (ERA‐Net) in Synthetic Biology (ERASynBio), in which we provided a number of recommendations for a variety of stakeholders [1]. The current article offers some deeper reflections about the interface between IPRs, standards and data exchange in systems biology (SysBio) resulting from an Expert Meeting funded by another ERA‐Net, ERASysAPP. The meeting brought together experts and stakeholders (e.g. scientists, company representatives, officials from public funding organizations) in SysBio from different European countries. Despite the different profiles of the stakeholders at the meeting and the variety of interests, many concerns and opinions were shared. In case particular views were expressed by a specific type of stakeholder, this will be explicitly mentioned in the text. In this article, we explore a number of particularly relevant issues that were discussed at the meeting and offer some recommendations.

[1]  Theodore H. Eaton Pedomorphosis: An Approach to the Chordate-Echinoderm Problem , 1953 .

[2]  M. Stief,et al.  Safe harbors in Europe: an update on the research and Bolar exemptions to patent infringement , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[3]  Carole Goble,et al.  The evolution of standards and data management practices in systems biology , 2015, Molecular systems biology.

[4]  J. Boyle,et al.  Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons , 2007, PLoS biology.

[5]  Gert Matthijs,et al.  Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[6]  Jorge L Contreras,et al.  Intellectual property issues and synthetic biology standards , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[7]  Allan Kuchinsky,et al.  The Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) provides a community standard for communicating designs in synthetic biology , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  Arti Rai,et al.  Law and technologyUnstandard standardization: the case of biology , 2010, CACM.

[9]  Andreas Dräger,et al.  Improving Collaboration by Standardization Efforts in Systems Biology , 2014, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol..

[10]  B. Rutz,et al.  Synthetic biology and intellectual property rights: six recommendations. , 2015, Biotechnology journal.

[11]  Gary D. Bader,et al.  Specifications of Standards in Systems and Synthetic Biology , 2015, J. Integr. Bioinform..

[12]  K. Blind,et al.  Emerging ways to address the reemerging conflict between patenting and technological standardization , 2012 .