However, the facts are a little murkier. Before deciding to forgo a patent application, the organization had already committed to giving the formulation and production processes for the vaccine to several pharmaceutical companies for free.
No one knows why the lawyers considered a patent application, but it seems likely that they would only have used it to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine.
There is no sign that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio vaccine. Although he was the first to produce a polio vaccine, Salk did not win the Nobel Prize or become a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Could we be braver still? And, if not, should we not then be recruiting the widest global collaboration based on transfer of knowledge and skills to empower all? Some would argue that we have failed globally on many fronts over the centuries, often due to vested interest or established, embedded issues. But does this not represent a fresh chance to do better? This seems a slightly grubby approach to science. Yet, as we know, such practices run deep now in aspects of science.
Unlike Salk, the current academic generation appears to accept this. The potentially corrupting ethics of commerce versus intellectuality are often overblown, but there is merit in being wary of some of the possible conflicts that can arise from claiming IP.
Other, much more minor, examples beyond the pandemic have also struck a chord with me over the last year, reminding me that there are dangers in this often-accepted approach. These were examples central to my field of exploring chemistry in biology: for this, commercially available biomolecules are now designed and sold as complete, off-the-shelf research reagents.
Yet, in many cases, the terms that one is forced to accept upon purchase even for public research using tax-payer and charitable money , are, when you examine them, somewhat surprising. In essence, not only are researchers not allowed to know what these reagents actually are in detail little or no molecular characterization, e. But beyond this euphemism, is that really the motivation for the scientists who develop things? For the Salks? It can be argued that the current systems of IP also create active disincentives.
Indeed, if one does characterize such reagents, e. This too has become common practice many of us use antibodies all the time, for example , but it seems to run counter to much that we hold dear as academics when we, as a community, routinely open ourselves up to rigorous peer review as a matter of course, warts and all. Is it not now time for a rebalancing of our approach? Learn about our mission, vision, values and priorities. BIO Leadership. Biotech Basics. Read about biotechnology.
Industry Recognition. Get to know the outstanding people and companies BIO supports. Careers BIO. Explore job openings with BIO today. BIO Media. I am BIO Podcast. I am BIO Video. Explore the Blog. January 27, BIO is also a leading voice on the patent-ability of biotech inventions and other IP matters. Could you patent the sun? Unfortunately, Jonas Salk created a myth that day by leaving out several crucial details. Murrow, he did not mention that the lawyers from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had looked into patenting the Salk Vaccine and concluded that it could not be patented because of prior art — that it would not be considered a patentable invention by standards of the day.
Salk implied that the decision was a moral one, but Jane Smith, in her history of the Salk Vaccine, Patenting the Sun , notes that whether or not Salk himself believed what he said to Murrow, the idea of patenting the vaccine had been directly analyzed and the decision was made not to apply for a patent mainly because it would not result in one. We will never know whether the National Foundation on Infantile Paralysis or the University of Pittsburgh would have patented the vaccine if they could, but the simple moral interpretation often applied to this case is simply wrong.
More on This Topic. New hope for rare disease patients with founding of non-profit with for-profit model. When Jonas Salk asked rhetorically "Would you patent the sun? Murrow, he did not mention that the lawyers from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had looked into patenting the Salk Vaccine and concluded that it could not be patented because of prior art - that it would not be considered a patentable invention by standards of the day.
Smith which is not-yet available for online reading at Google Books :. Salk implied that the decision was a moral one, but Jane Smith, in her history of the Salk Vaccine, Patenting the Sun, notes that whether or not Salk himself believed what he said to Murrow, the idea of patenting the vaccine had been directly analyzed and the decision was made not to apply for a patent mainly because it would not result in one.
0コメント