The exclusive licenses granted to three for-profit companies on key discoveries about the revolutionary genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 threaten to “bottleneck” its use “to discover and develop useful human therapeutics,” patent experts argued in a paper published on Thursday.

What the exclusive licenses have done “is give an entire industry to … companies that will never be able to fully exploit it,” Jorge Contreras of the University of Utah, a co-author of the paper in Science, said in an interview. “And that may hold back the development of therapies.”

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • There is no doubt that patents on tools and methods–as opposed to the therapeutics obtained with them–are bad for innovation and should be seen as IP overreach. The courts have in the past agreed with that thinking when they nullified Pfizer’s patents on PDE5 (Viagra’s target), and the Whitehead/Harvard/MIT patents on NF-kappaB (Xigris’ target). It is not only that Editas, Caribou and Crispr Therapeutics cannot possibly address all the diseases that might be treated by gene editing. One can argue that even with the diseases that they choose to address, there is no guarantee that their therapeutics will be the best. The interest of society are best served by allowing companies to compete on the quality of their products, not by granting protected franchises that might limit patients’ choice to inferior options.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy