Scientific research and intellectual property rights 28/4/03. By the Public Health Genetics Unit Balancing public benefits from scientific research against intellectual property rights: the Royal Society reports.

In its report 'Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science', the Royal Society suggests some significant changes to the current regime for protecting intellectual property rights (IPRs) where they are applied to aspects of scientific research and knowledge dissemination.

Concentrating on three areas of IPRs – patents, copyright and database protection – the Society concludes that, although IPRs are necessary to stimulate innovation and protect investment in research and development, many aspects of the current implementation of IPR legislation are not in the public interest.

Its 25 key recommendations are tabulated together with a check-list of groups and organisations (Government, funding bodies, learned bodies, industry, courts, etc.) who need to take action on each point.

Many of the examples discussed in the report come from the area of biomedical science research.

In the area of patents, for example (currently covered in the UK by implementation of an EU Directive on legal protection of biotechnological inventions), the Royal Society believes that the requirement to demonstrate both an inventive step and an industrial application should be interpreted much more rigorously by patent examiners, and that when a patent is granted its scope should be "no greater than that justified by the contribution made by the invention". There should not be a presumption in favour of granting a patent and examiners should seek expert advice when assessing applications made in rapidly advancing fields of research.

The report also recommends clarification of the current exemptions that allow researchers to use patented 'inventions' for private and non-commercial use, the introduction of cheaper procedures for resolving patent disputes, and measures to protect the interests of developing countries.

In discussing copyright protection, the report points out new problems that have arisen with the growing use of electronic media for publishing scientific findings. The blanket application of a new European Directive originally designed to protect the interests of the entertainment industry (information about implementation of this Directive is available on the UK Patent Office website) is likely to hamper the need of scientific researchers for "fair dealing access for research and private study". The Royal Society also urges scientists to publish their work in journals with liberal access policies, and recommends shortening the duration of copyright protection.

Database rights are protected in Europe under an EU 'Database Directive' that may be suitable for stock market or horse racing databases but is inappropriate for application to scientific information, according to the report.

For example, the 'fair dealing' exceptions that allow extraction and/or use of the information in a database for non-commercial research, education and library use are vague, and could be seriously detrimental to science if rigorously enforced.

It is also not in the public interest that data generated at great expense by publicly funded research should be made inaccessible by inclusion in a private database, so the report recommends that all such data should be placed in at least one repository that has liberal conditions of access and use. Specific mention is made of the need to clarify the terms of use of information to be generated by the UK Biobank project.

The report concludes that there is a need to take active measures to counteract a growing trend towards more stringent application of IPRs that is fettering scientific research and runs counter to the wider public interest.

Article courtesy of the Public Health Genetics Unit .

Image credit: Neil Leslie