Gregory D. Graff

The public-private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology.

New findings indicate that there may be benefits from more collaborative models of intellectual property management in the public sector.

Agricultural Biotechnology's Complementary Intellectual Assets

We formulate and test a hypothesis for the dramatic restructuring that the plant breeding and seed industry has recently undergone: the reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit complementarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically modified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on agricultural biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets has increased under the consolidation of the industry.

University Research and Offices of Technology Transfer

Acknowledges the shift in the role of the American research university from provider of educational services and public knowledge to key component in the industrial innovation infrastructure. Economic incentives and constraints shape the R & D decisions of researchers both in academia and industry. OTTs (Offices of Technology Transfer) are a recent institutional innovation created by universities to function as a marketing channel that bridges the gap between university research and industrial innovation. Reviewing previous studies and surveys of U.S. research universities, the authors suggest that the OTTs most significant function is driving entrepreneurship via startups which use university technology. University revenue from technology licensing has grown in recent years but is still a small factor in university budgets, as universities try to maintain their autonomy. The authors conclude that the OTTs, as an institutional innovation, are in the middle stages of the adoption-diffusion process in U.S. universities, and may shift or expand, depending on new technology and new industries. Smaller universities with fewer inventions may benefit more from either aligning themselves with the OTTs of larger universities or by forming OTTs among themselves in order to attract economies of scale.(CBS)

The global stem cell patent landscape: implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development

Characteristics of the complex and growing stem cell patent landscape indicate strategies by which public sector research institutions could improve the efficiency of intellectual property agreements and technology transfers in stem cells.

The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation.

volume 27 number 8 AuGuST 2009 nature biotechnology Of the 49 product candidates identified in the secondary survey (Table 1) very few had been submitted for regulatory approval. Further attribution during regulatory review and commercialization will probably mean only a fraction of these 49 reaches market. Activity has been uneven across the ten identified trait categories (Table 1). Traits governing content and composition of macronutrients—proteins, oils and carbohydrates—and traits that control fruit ripening have reached later stages of R&D, whereas fewer products with enhanced micronutrients, functional food components or novel esthetics are expected (as shown in a secondary survey). Product quality innovation appears to be responding more to demand in intermediate markets for processing and feed attributes than to demand in final retail markets for improved or novel products. Of the 558 innovations identified three quarters of the 558 had already been discontinued and only a portion of those remaining were mature enough to warrant an expectation of commercialization. Thus, the 49 innovations identified in the secondary survey are likely a good representation of what is indeed forthcoming. The results of these two surveys illustrate the typical filtering or screening function of the R&D process, whereby unsuitable candidates are culled from further development based on technical, safety and economic criteria. Of the 558 innovations identified in the primary survey (Table 1), 355 had entered initial field trials; of those, 51 had gone on to advanced field trials; 14 were submitted for regulatory approval and five were actually commercialized. Only two remain on the market (a mauve carnation commercialized in Australia and Asia and a reduced nicotine cigarette in regional test markets in the United States). To the Editor: Agbiotech innovations that directly benefit users beyond the farm gate—such as nutritional content, ripening control or processing characteristics—have not been commercialized to nearly the same extent as pest-control traits like insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. Product quality or ‘output’ traits have been anticipated since the earliest days of plant genetic engineering1. They are expected to improve public perceptions of genetic engineering2,3 and make agricultural and natural resource systems more responsive to environmental demands4. The question thus stands: Why have quality-improving innovations from agbiotech not been more readily forthcoming? Here we address this question through two surveys of the global R&D pipeline, which were undertaken to determine the extent to which product quality innovations have been moving toward commercialization and, thereby, to explore what factors may be affecting the development of this type of application of plant biotech. The primary survey was backward looking, drawing upon published records to reconstruct the histories of 558 product quality innovations (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Three common denominators—(i) the plant species, (ii) the trait and (iii) the innovating organization—were used to define a single ‘innovation’. Once identified, a single innovation’s development was traced through the various stages of R&D by collating multiple records including scientific articles, field trials and/or regulatory filings that refer to the same innovation. For example, all records of (i) maize (ii) with increased lysine (iii) by the University of Minnesota (St. Paul, MN, USA) were combined to trace the history of that innovation. (For more details, see Supplementary Notes.) A second survey was undertaken that was forward looking, collecting predictions from agbiotech companies and industry analysts about future product commercialization. It identified 49 quality innovations expected by 2015 (Table 1 for a summary and Supplementary Table 2 for full data.) In comparing the 558 innovations in the primary survey to the 49 in the secondary survey, we note that about The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation

Not quite a myriad of gene patents

A new study assesses the impact of recent US Supreme Court rulings on the changing landscape of US patents claiming nucleic acids.

Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: toward consistent and transparent practices

As industry, governments and academia increasingly rely on patent landscapes to map scientific and technological trends, an interdisciplinary workshop provides recommendations for developing consistent and transparent landscaping practices.

Access to Stem Cells and Data: Persons, Property Rights, and Scientific Progress

15. J. Ginsberg et al., Nature 457, 1012 (2009). 16. J. Pratt, J. Rhine, B. Smith, C. Stuart, J. Greenwood, Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years: A Critical Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception (Holt, New York, 1940). 17. G. V. Glass, M. L. Smith, Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 1, 2 (1979). 18. S. A. Greenberg, BMJ 339, b2680 (2009). 19. J. E. Hunter, F. L. Schmidt, Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, ed. 2, 2004). 20. Cochrane Collaboration Reviewer’s Handbook, www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook. 21. S. M. Stigler, The History of Statistics: The Measurement of Uncertainty Before 1900 (Belknap/Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986). 22. K. Pearson, Br. Med. J. 3, 1243 (1904). 23. K. O’Rourke, J. R. Soc. Med. 100, 579 (2007). 24. L. V. Hedges, Stat. Sci. 7, 246 (1992). 25. J. P. Ioannidis, PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005). 26. A. S. Gerber, N. Malhotra, Sociol. Methods Res. 37, 3 (2008). 27. A. Rzhetsky, I. Iossifov, J. M. Loh, K. P. White, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 4940 (2006). 28. U. Shwed, P. S. Bearman, Am. Sociol. Rev. 75, 817 (2010). 29. M. Cokol, I. Iossifov, C. Weinreb, A. Rzhetsky, Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1243 (2005). 30. M. Cokol, R. Rodriguez-Esteban, A. Rzhetsky, Genome Biol. 8, 406 (2007). 31. J. P. Ioannidis, T. A. Trikalinos, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58, 543 (2005). 32. M. Cokol, I. Iossifov, R. Rodriguez-Esteban, A. Rzhetsky, EMBO Rep. 8, 422 (2007). 33. J. P. Ioannidis, JAMA 294, 218 (2005). 34. T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977). 35. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Science 185, 1124 (1974). 36. M. Solomon, Philos. Sci. 59, 439 (1992). 37. D. L. Smail, On Deep History and the Brain (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2008). 38. J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, A. Norenzayan, Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61 (2010). 39. M. E. Harris, Ed., Ways of Knowing: New Approaches in the Anthropology of Experience and Learning (Berghahn, Oxford, 2007). 40. E. Martin, Signs 16, 485 (1991). 41. R. Barnhardt, Anthropol. Educ. Q. 36, 8 (2005). 42. K. Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999). 43. R. Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (Belknap/Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998). 44. S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, B. Uzzi, Science 316, 1036 (2007); 10.1126/science.1136099. 45. M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 64, 016131 (2001). 46. M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 64, 016132 (2001). 47. M. E. J. Newman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (suppl. 1), 5200 (2004). 48. D. J. Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (Knopf, New York, ed. 1, 1978). 49. T. Lenoir, Instituting Science: The Cultural Production of Scientific Disciplines (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, 1997). 50. P. Coffey, Cathedrals of Science: The Personalities and Rivalries That Made Modern Chemistry (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 2008). 51. S. Allesina, http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0344 (2009). 52. S. Thurner, R. Hanel, http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4324 (2010). 53. J. A. Evans, Soc. Stud. Sci. 40, 757 (2010). 54. E. M. Armstrong, D. P. Carpenter, M. Hojnacki, J. Health Polit. Policy Law 31, 729 (2006). 55. J. A. Evans, J. Reimer, Science 323, 1025 (2009). 56. myExperiment, www.myexperiment.org. 57. The Polymath Blog, http://polymathprojects.org. 58. Zooniverse, www.zooniverse.org/home. 59. WolframAlpha, www.wolframalpha.com. 60. E. Evangelou, T. A. Trikalinos, J. P. Ioannidis, FASEB J. 19, 1943 (2005). 61. R. Foote, Science 318, 410 (2007). 62. H. M. Collins, Sci. Stud. 4, 165 (1974). 63. T. M. J. Fruchterman, E. M. Reingold, Softw. Pract. Exper. 21, 1129 (1991). 64. This research benefited from NSF grant 0915730 and responses at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Institute for Computing in Science (ICiS) workshop “Integrating, Representing, and Reasoning over Human Knowledge: A Computational Grand Challenge for the 21st Century.” We thank K. Brown, E. A. Cartmill, M. Cartmill, and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments on this essay.Many fields have struggled to develop strategies, policies, or structures to optimally manage data, materials, and intellectual property rights (IPRs). There is growing recognition that the field of stem cell science, in part because of its complex IPRs landscape and the importance of cell line collections, may require collective action to facilitate basic and translational research. Access to pluripotent stem cell lines and the information associated with them is critical to the progress of stem cell science, but simple notions of access are substantially complicated by shifting boundaries between what is considered information versus material, person versus artifact, and private property versus the public domain.

The emerging patent landscape of CRISPR-Cas gene editing technology

Early views on the control of the CRISPR-Cas disruptive enabling technology and access for follow-on commercial applications.

The rise and fall of innovation in biofuels

A look at the global landscape of biofuel patenting shows that, after surging between 2004 and 2008, the invention of biofuel technologies slowed considerably, and in many countries went into decline. Global trends point to an uncertain future, in particular, for advanced biofuels.