One unintended consequence of an increasingly translational research focused agenda is
that science is steadily drifting towards milestone-oriented contract research. We are almost there already, with practically every grant gendered and mile-stoned with trumped-up relevance to the greater good of society. Curiosity driven or high-risk science for the sake of new insights beyond the directly applicable is becoming exceedingly hard to fund. There is not much difference anymore between a CRO contract and a grant (except nobody really takes the academic milestone table seriously) and non-delivery by academia rarely has consequences. That might change with hardened translationalist influence, so let's be careful what we wish for.. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pietro Roversi Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents Dear all, one of the most interesting documents in recent times on the matter of translational research and IP comes from the Wellcome Trust: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transforming-uk-translation-20170 725.pdf In particular, under committments 4-8, they spell out - although implicitly - the push for a change in which IP is handled in Universities. Let's see which way it goes but I remain hopeful with best wishes Pietro ===================================== Dr. Pietro Roversi As of July 2018 I shall take up a two-year LISCB and Leicester-Wellcome Trust ISSF Fellowship at Leicester University: http://www2.le.ac.uk/institutes/liscb Until June 2018: Oxford Glycobiology Institute Department of Biochemistry University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QU England - UK Tel. 0044 1865 275339 _____ From: CCP4 bulletin board [[email protected]] on behalf of Alun R Coker [[email protected]] Sent: 05 November 2017 20:35 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to the university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law which says that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So giving up IPR can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach of contract .... though I don't suppose that most universities would pursue this. Recently, at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy which says that all patentable IP created during the course of our duties is owned the university. We are challenging this through our academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic Board members to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to hear what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR policy rewritten by invoking the 1926 Slavery Convention, which states that slavery is defined as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an academic's intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership over the academic. All the best, Alun On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote: There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives including prizes as an alternative to patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_area s_for_prize_models_over_patents On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Isn't that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the invention a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the invention, and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone (in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all, and having an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit.) seems a reasonable proposition.. Best, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Abhishek Anan Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents I second Gert's thoughts.... Best, Abhishek On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: A related question. If you have a crystal structure and found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings? I would say that the best one can do with important novel data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the world can benefit from it. Gert -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36 -- Dr Alun R. Coker Senior Lecturer Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research University College London The Cruciform Building London WC1E 6BT Tel: 020 7679 6703 Ext 46703 Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed>
