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!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

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.

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

Privacy Policy