21–30 of 106 posts
Can someone share a tl;dr version of this?
There’s a patent issue too, but it’s difficult to evaluate since the issue is between a non-profit (The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard) and a public institution (University of California, Berkley) and most people acknowledge that either would be better for progress than any commercial entity.
This is part of an ongoing dispute between Jinek et al at Berkeley and Zhang et al at the Broad Institute. Both groups did important work on CRISPR-CAS9, and now they're fighting over credit, a patent, and (probably) a Nobel prize. Eric Lander, head of the Broad Institute, recently published an article "The Heroes of CRISPR" which emphasizes his own institution's role and downplays Berkeley's. Michael Eisen, a profes…
As time goes on, I'm understanding more and more that academic science, which I had naively imagined to be a pure endeavor prosecuted by good-hearted individuals on humanity's behalf, is in fact as dominated by powerful, acquisitive individuals who are more interested in advancing their own power than in human good, knowledge, etc. The pursuit of IP is taking over the university, much to its detriment.
However, it's far more pure, than, say, typical SV venture capital.
Lander is widely known for being both a scientific and political heavyweight. He knows how to gain power, knows how to wield it, and uses it both to serve scientific goals and his own.
Such use of power has pushed forward science to some degree by allowing considerable economic resources to be applied in a focused manner. But it gets used for other purposes too, because Lander is still a human, and still makes mistakes.
A Nobel Prize is now at stake. Lifespan, disease and the human race is at stake. The internal scientific politicking on both sides is classic. "by going into depth about the contributions of early CRISPR pioneers, Lander is able to almost literally write Doudna and Charpentier (and, for that matter, genome-editing pioneer George Church, whose CRISPR work has also been largely ignored) out of this history. They are me…
This is part of an ongoing dispute between Jinek et al at Berkeley and Zhang et al at the Broad Institute. Both groups did important work on CRISPR-CAS9, and now they're fighting over credit, a patent, and (probably) a Nobel prize. Eric Lander, head of the Broad Institute, recently published an article "The Heroes of CRISPR" which emphasizes his own institution's role and downplays Berkeley's. Michael Eisen, a profes…
While there’s a patent issue, this is an issue of attribution (i.e. ego). I know most would prefer either a non-profit (The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard) or a public institution (University of California, Berkley) than some commercial entity.
As time goes on, I'm understanding more and more that academic science, which I had naively imagined to be a pure endeavor prosecuted by good-hearted individuals on humanity's behalf, is in fact as dominated by powerful, acquisitive individuals who are more interested in advancing their own power than in human good, knowledge, etc. The pursuit of IP is taking over the university, much to its detriment.
IP is just another form of applause, and with it or without it wouldn't matter or change the behavior. People who want the prestige will rise to the occasion and treat the world as a zero sum game.
A Nobel Prize is now at stake. Lifespan, disease and the human race is at stake. The internal scientific politicking on both sides is classic. "by going into depth about the contributions of early CRISPR pioneers, Lander is able to almost literally write Doudna and Charpentier (and, for that matter, genome-editing pioneer George Church, whose CRISPR work has also been largely ignored) out of this history. They are me…
From what I broadly understand from CRISPR, the Nobel is almost a footnote in history, the real prize seems to be the patent.
I hate the fact that breakthroughs like this are patentable. People need to follow Alexander Flemings lead: The pharmacist Sir Alexander Fleming is revered not just because of his discovery of penicillin – the antibiotic that has saved millions of lives – but also due to his efforts to ensure that it was freely available to as much of the world’s population as possible. Fleming could have become a hugely wealthy man…
"When asked who owned the patent to it, Salk said, 'There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?'"
Can someone share a tl;dr version of this?
There is a patent dispute about who owns the patent on this technique. Lots of money is potentially at stake. This article was written from one of the parties (Broad institute and UC Berkely) being one of them. Oddly the Lander article supports the notion that this invention is evolution not revolutionary.
Broad has been working to move from from CRISPR/CAS9 to CRISPR/Something else better). The UC Berkley seems to have come up with it first, but is it obvious or obvious to use in editing is the question. The UC [2]team has pulled all there patent claims and resubmitted them twice, presumably to broaden the scope and cover any use. Add some east coast/west coast rivalry and some other biases and you have a powder keg of science.
Anyway lots of blame to go around.
siyer posted this in a previous article which puts the patent dispute in context and if the patent is only cas9:
[1]http://www.ipscell.com/2016/01/patent-expert-weighs-in-on-cr...
and the strange patent application by UC and :
[2]https://law.stanford.edu/2015/12/29/the-crispr-patent-interf...
As time goes on, I'm understanding more and more that academic science, which I had naively imagined to be a pure endeavor prosecuted by good-hearted individuals on humanity's behalf, is in fact as dominated by powerful, acquisitive individuals who are more interested in advancing their own power than in human good, knowledge, etc. The pursuit of IP is taking over the university, much to its detriment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution...