IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2006031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials

Author

Listed:
  • Jane Nielsen
  • Tania Bubela
  • Don R C Chalmers
  • Amber Johns
  • Linda Kahl
  • Joanne Kamens
  • Charles Lawson
  • John Liddicoat
  • Rebekah McWhirter
  • Ann Monotti
  • James Scheibner
  • Tess Whitton
  • Dianne Nicol

Abstract

Whereas biological materials were once transferred freely, there has been a marked shift in the formalisation of exchanges involving these materials, primarily through the use of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). This paper considers how risk aversion dominates MTA negotiations and the impact it may have on scientific progress. Risk aversion is often based on unwarranted fears of incurring liability through the use of a material or loss of control or missing out on commercialisation opportunities. Evidence to date has suggested that complexity tends to permeate even straightforward transactions despite extensive efforts to implement simple, standard MTAs. We argue that in most cases, MTAs need do little more than establish provenance, and any attempt to extend MTAs beyond this simple function constitutes stifling behaviour. Drawing on available examples of favourable practice, we point to a number of strategies that may usefully be employed to reduce risk-averse tendencies, including the promotion of simplicity, education of those engaged in the MTA process, and achieving a cultural shift in the way in which technology transfer office (TTO) success is measured in institutions employing MTAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jane Nielsen & Tania Bubela & Don R C Chalmers & Amber Johns & Linda Kahl & Joanne Kamens & Charles Lawson & John Liddicoat & Rebekah McWhirter & Ann Monotti & James Scheibner & Tess Whitton & Dianne , 2018. "Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-9, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2006031
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006031
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006031&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walsh, John P. & Cohen, Wesley M. & Cho, Charlene, 2007. "Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1184-1203, October.
    2. Thinh Nguyen, 2007. "Science Commons: Material Transfer Agreement Project," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 2(3), pages 137-143, July.
    3. Tania Bubela & Jenilee Guebert & Amrita Mishra, 2015. "Use and Misuse of Material Transfer Agreements: Lessons in Proportionality from Research, Repositories, and Litigation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schaeffer, Véronique, 2019. "The use of material transfer agreements in academia: A threat to open science or a cooperation tool?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    2. Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, "undated". "Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 244, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    3. Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
    4. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    5. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    6. Francesco Lissoni, 2013. "Intellectual property and university–industry technology transfer," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 7, pages 164-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Franzoni, Chiara & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2010. "The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 200-213, March.
    8. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    9. Madison, Michael J & Frischmann, Brett M. & Strandburg, Katherine J., 2017. "Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1," LawArXiv af3ud, Center for Open Science.
    10. Arora Ashish, 2010. "Comment on "Finding the Endless Frontier: Lessons from the Life Sciences Innovation System for Technology Policy" (by Iain M. Cockburn and Scott Stern)," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-6, July.
    11. David Mowery, 2011. "Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 697-711, December.
    12. Pénin, Julien & Wack, Jean-Pierre, 2008. "Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1909-1921, December.
    13. Martine R. Haas & Sangchan Park, 2010. "To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 873-891, August.
    14. Koen Frenken, 2010. "Geography of Scientific Knowledge: A Proximity Approach," Working Papers 10-01, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Mar 2010.
    15. Chiara Franzoni & Giuseppe Scellato & Paula Stephan, 2012. "Foreign Born Scientists: Mobility Patterns for Sixteen Countries," NBER Working Papers 18067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Thompson, Neil C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A. & Mowery, David C., 2018. "University licensing and the flow of scientific knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1060-1069.
    17. Meuer, Johannes & Rupietta, Christian & Backes-Gellner, Uschi, 2015. "Layers of co-existing innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 888-910.
    18. Fengqing Zhang & Erjia Yan & Xin Niu & Yongjun Zhu, 2018. "Joint modeling of the association between NIH funding and its three primary outcomes: patents, publications, and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 591-602, October.
    19. Tania Bubela & Jenilee Guebert & Amrita Mishra, 2015. "Use and Misuse of Material Transfer Agreements: Lessons in Proportionality from Research, Repositories, and Litigation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, February.
    20. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2006031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.