WHO: Intellectual Property Claims Hindering Research On Deadly Novel Coronavirus

New submitter kwyjibo87 writes "The World Health Organization (WHO) publicly expressed dismay yesterday concerning news that intellectual property claims were hindering research on a deadly new emerging virus. Novel coronavirus (nCoV), a member of the same viral genus as the causative agent of SARS, has claimed the lives of 22 people (out of 44 reported infected) and left both researchers and health officials scrambling to develop effective diagnostic tests in addition to possible medications and vaccines against nCoV. Now, however, claims of intellectual property on the new virus are hindering research on nCoV according to the WHO, delaying advancements on tools to prevent further spread of the infection. Stories of intellectual property rights in science hindering advancements in research, particularly in clinical applications, are nothing new; the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the validity of patents on the BRCA1/2 genes and has yet to issue a decision. The issue of sharing scientific information in order to promote faster research on emerging pathogens is not limited to intellectual property — a recent article in the journal Nature highlighted a case where Chinese researchers risked having their research scooped after uploading viral sequences to a public database designed aid global scientific collaboration."

Comments

Liability?

[seven of five]

Fine, you knuckleheads want to claim ownership? How about some wrongful death suits?

patents vs. research?

[Black Parrot]

I thought patents did not prevent research that uses the patented material.

At any rate, allowing patents on discoveries (vs. inventions) is just stupid.

Re:patents vs. research?

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, that was my impression as well. In fact I used to routinely investigate patented techniques in my research when I worked in R&D.

Ah the frigtarded Courts screwed us over:

From Wikipedia:

"In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business." In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable."

this is disgusting

The purpose of patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Some thoughts about corruption

[boorack]

In the western world we tend to perceive corruption as simple bribery. In my opinion, this thinking is way to narrow - but it keeps us in a kind of comfort zone, that in western world we have much less corruption than anywhere else. BUT if we add regulatory capture and start measuring corruption (simple bribery plus regulatory capture) in terms of human costs, world starts to look totally different. Broken intellectual property law - in this case hindering efforts to fight off a (potentially) deadly virus - is one of many examples of this. I'd rather call it legalized corruption than involve in debating rights and wrongs of this particular (narrow) issue. The same with patented cancer genes, software patents, financial institutions being out of control, monsanto force-feeding us with their toxic crap, legalized tax evasion etc. All those things are legal! Yet until we won't recognize this as ("legalized") corruption, these things won't be solved as root cause of all of this (regulatory capture) will still be there. It will cost us money, health and ultimately lives until we recognize that western countries - especially US - are propably the most corrupt ones in the world just because of sheer scale of this "legalized" corruption and its effects in terms of human costs. If you include all those banana republics we (western countries) imposed corrupt broken regimes just to steal their wealth, the whole picture looks even more grim. Stop debating rights and wrongs of narrow issues - it plays well to the hand of our corrupt corporate overlords. Get up and start fighting corruption in all its forms, including "legalized" one.

Re:Some thoughts about corruption

[gl4ss]

technically, if it's legalized and in the open then it is not corruption - it is the system working as intended.
it's better than having corruption, because it could be changed if there was enough public demand for it. with plain old corruption changing it is harder, as it's shady who is allowed to do what and why.

Re:Scooped?

[stephanruby]

I know Slashdot is a US centric site but please remember that there are many non-native-US-English speakers reading it as well. I'm a native English speaker but I don't know what "scooped" means in the context of TFS.

The term scooped means "first one to get the credit for a discovery". It's usually used in the context of journalism, but the term still works in this case.

It's just like when French scientists first discovered the HIV virus (or so they claim). They mailed their blood samples to American scientists so the American scientists could confirm their findings and replicate their results, but the exact same American scientists who received those samples and the methodology the French scientists used, just used the same samples and ended up publishing the same results -- claiming the original discovery for themselves (at least, that's the story being told from the French side).

It's not just a question of ownership, although that's a part of it too, it's also a question of who gets the original credit (or shared credit) for the discovery (since that also determines who ends up getting mountains of public funding and/or royalties). And even public institutions are capable of stealing credit even if there are no patents/royalties involved, since reputation and public funding are just as important to them (as profits are to a private corporation).

If this company claims 'ownership' of this virus

[number6x]

Then I think they should be charged with 22 cases of murder. It might not be murder 1, but manslaughter.

• If a car you owned hit someone, you would be charged.
• If a building you owned fell on someone, you would be charged.
• If a pit bull you owned killed someone, you would be charged.

If you want to 'own' this virus, you get to 'own' the consequences. Corporations are people. Some places have the death penalty for people who commit crimes.