Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:03:08.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Commodification of Emergence: Systems Biology, Synthetic Biology and Intellectual Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Jane Calvert
Jane Calvert
Affiliation:
ESRC Innogen Centre, Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation (ISSTI), University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons’ Hall, Edinburgh EH1 1LZ, UK E-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In this article I address the interactions between biological knowledge and ideas about the kinds of entity that are suited to appropriation. I start by arguing that commodification and reductionism are closely linked, and that patenting suits entities that are discrete and isolable, such as those that are the focus of molecular biology. I then turn to the new field of systems biology, which recognizes that traditional reductionist approaches to biology are no longer adequate and attempts to provide a more integrative understanding of biological systems. In doing this, systems biology has to deal with emergent phenomena. But patenting does not suit the dynamic and interactive complexity that is the object of study in systems biology. If systems biology rejects reductionism where does that leave commodification? I examine attempts to commodify predictive computational models in systems biology. I then turn to systems biology's sister discipline, synthetic biology, which deals with emergence by reducing the complexity of biological systems. By factoring out messy contingencies, synthetic biology is, in theory, well suited to commodification. Drawing on both these examples I explore how ideas about appropriation, including open source, are influencing the nature and course of research in biology.

Keywords

CommodificationDisentanglementEmergenceIntellectual PropertySynthetic BiologySystems Biology
Type
Articles
Information
BioSocieties , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 383 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © London School of Economics and Political Science 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelman, D.E. (2005). A fallacy of the commons in biotech patent policy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20, 985–1030.Google Scholar
Allarakhia, M., & Wensley, A. (2005). Innovation and intellectual property rights in systems biology. Nature Biotechnology, 23(12), 1485–1488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (1991). URL (accessed October 2008): http://vlex.com/vid/37355922Google Scholar
Andrianantoandro, E., Basu, S., Karig, D.K., & Weiss, R. (2006). Synthetic biology: New engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular Systems Biology, URL (accessed October 2008): www.nature.com/msb/journal/v2/n1/full/msb4100073.htmlCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashcroft, R.E. (2003). The double helix 50 years on: Models, metaphors, and reductionism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29: 63–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auffray, C., Imbeaud, S., Roux-Rouquié, M., & Hood, L. (2003). From functional genomics to systems biology: Concepts and practices. Compte Rendus Biologies, 326(10), 879–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balaram, P. (2003). Synthesising life. Current Science, 85(11), 1509–1510.Google Scholar
Balmer, B.L. (1996). Managing mapping in the human genome project. Social Studies of Science, 26(3), 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, C.L., Kim, T.Y., Kim, H.U., Palsson, B.Ø., & Lee, S.Y. (2006). Systems biology as a foundation for genome-scale synthetic biology. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17(5), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BBSRC (2006). Towards a vision and road map for systems biology. Report from the BBSRC Vision for Systems Biology Workshop, Exeter, 16–17 March.Google Scholar
Behrens, T.R., & Gray, D.O. (2001). Unintended consequences of co-operative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, S.A., & Sismour, A.M. (2005). Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biagioli, M. (2007). Denaturalizing the public domain: How to use science studies to rethink IP. Talk at the University of Edinburgh, 10 December.Google Scholar
BIOS (2008). URL (accessed January 2008): www.bios.net/daisy/bios/licenses/398.htmlGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E., & Lewis, K.S. (1996). Relationships between academics institutions and industry in the life sciences—An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(6), 368–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonneuil, C., & Gaudillière, J.-P. (2007). Navigating post-Fordist DNA: Network, regulations and variability in genomics and society. Presentation at the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology, University of Exeter, 25–29 July.Google Scholar
Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F.J., Hofmeyr, J.-H.S., & Westerhoff, H.V. (Eds) (2007). Systems biology: Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Breithaupt, H. (2006). The engineer's approach to biology. EMBO Reports, 7(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brent, R. (2004). A partnership between biology and engineering. Nature Biotechnology, 22(10), 1211–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broad, C.D. (1925). The mind and its place in nature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (Ed.) (1998). The laws of the markets. London: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. 311–357 Princeton. NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R.M., Kieff, FS, & Walsh, J.P. (2006). Evidence and anecdotes: An analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nature Biotechnology, 24(9), 1091–1095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crick, F. (1966). The influence of physics on molecular biology (Cherwell-Simon Lecture), URL (accessed October 2008): http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/D/H/_/scbbdh.pdfGoogle Scholar
De Vriend, H. (2006). Constructing life: Early social reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. The Hague: Rathenau Institute. Working Document 97, URL (accessed June 2008): www.rathenauinstituut.com//showpage.asp?steID=2&item=2644Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (2007). Is it not possible to reduce biological explanations to explanations in chemistry and/or physics. Egenis working paper.Google Scholar
Endy, D. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology. Nature, 438(24 November), 449–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2001). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ferber, D. (2004). Microbes made to order. Science, 303 (9 January), 158–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, S. (2003). Kinship, genes, and cloning: Life after Dolly. In Goodman, A., Heath, D., & Lindee, S. (Eds.), Genetic nature/culture: Anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide, 95–110. Berkeley: U California Press.Google Scholar
GenomeWeb Daily News (2008). Codon Devices, Blue Heron settle litigation. GenomeWeb Daily News 31 March, URL (accessed July 2008): www.genomeweb.com/issues/news/145956-1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, M., & Wittrock, B. (Eds) (1985). Science as a commodity. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.F., & Sarkar, S. (2000). Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics, 219(1), 1–9.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glass, J.I., Smith, H.O., Hutchinson III, C.A., Alperovich, N.Y., & Assad-Garcia, N. (Inventors); J. Craig Venter Institute, Inc. (Assignee). 2007, October 12. Minimal bacterial genome. United States patent application 20070122826.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, M., & Panke, S. (2006). Synthetic biology—Putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics, 22(22), 2790–2799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, M.A., & Eisenberg, R.S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(1 May), 698–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellström, T., & Jacob, M. (2005). Taming unruly science and saving national competitiveness: Discourses on science by Swedish strategic research bodies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(4), 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkel, J., & Maurer, S.M. (2007). The economics of synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology 3: 117, URL (accessed October 2008): www.nature.com/msb/journal/v3/n1/full/msb4100161.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G.M. (2000). The concept of emergence in social science: Its history and importance. Emergence, 2(4), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeyer, K. (2007). Person, patent and property: A critique of the commodification hypothesis. BioSocieties, 2, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, P. (2007). Which way is up on Callon? In MacKenzie, D., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (Eds.) Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics, 225–243. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Huang, S. (2000). The practical problems of post-genomic biology. Nature Biotechnology, 18(5), 471–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaacs, F.J., & Collins, J.J. (2005). Plug and play with RNA. Nature Biotechnology, 23(3), 306–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, M. (2003). Rethinking science and commodifying knowledge. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keasling, J. (2005). The promise of synthetic biology. The Bridge, 35 (4), URL (accessed July 2008): www.nae.edu/NAE/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-6KJTMT?OpenDocumentGoogle Scholar
Keasling, J., Vincent, M., Pitera, D., Kim, S.-W., Sydnor, W.T., Yasuo, Y. et al. (2007). USPTO Patent Application 20070166782: Biosynthesis of isopentenyl pyrophosphate.Google Scholar
Keller, E.F. (2005). The century beyond the gene. Journal of the Biosciences, 30(1), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, S., & Rai, A.K. (2007). Synthetic biology: The intellectual property puzzle. Texas Law Review, 85, 1745–1768.Google Scholar
Lind, D., & Barham, E. (2004). The social life of the tortilla: Food, cultural politics, and contested commodification. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, G.S. (2004). Can complexity be commercialized? Nature Biotechnology, 22(10), 1223–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marguet, P., Balagadde, P., Tan, C., & You, L. (2007). Biology by design: Reduction and synthesis of cellular components and behaviour. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, URL (accessed October 2008): www.duke.edu/~you/publications/marguet_etal.pdfCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurer, S. (2006). Reporter notes on Synthetic Biology/Economics Workshop: Choosing the Right IP Policy. UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, 31 March 2006. URL (consulted): http://gspp.berkeley.edu/iths/SynBio%20Workshop%20Report.htmGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. (1887). Capital, vol. 1: The process of production of capital. Trans. S. Moore and E. Aveling, Ed. F. Engels. Moscow: Progress Publishers. URL (accessed December 2007): Marx/Engels Internet Archive www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/Google Scholar
McAfee, K. (2003). Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: Economies and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles. Geoforum, 34(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.M. (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: U Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.M. (2007). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Wajcman, J., & Lynch, M. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies, 635–689. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moss, L. (2003). What genes can't do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nature Biotechnology (2005). Recent patent applications in systems biology. Nature Biotechnology, 23(8), 939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nature (2005). In pursuit of systems. Nature, 435 (5 May), 1.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
O'Malley, M., Powell, A., Davies, J., & Calvert, J. (2008). Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. BioEssays, 30(1), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1996). Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palsson, B. (2000). The challenges of in silico biology. Nature Biotechnology, 18(11),1147–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parry, B.C. (2008). Entangled exchange: Reconceptualising the characterisation and practice of bodily commodification. Geoforum, 39(3), 1133–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, H. (2006). What is a gene? Nature, 441(25 May), 399–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pottage, A. (2007). The socio-legal implications of the new biotechnologies. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pottage, A., & Sherman, B. (2007). Organisms and manufactures: On the history of plant inventions. Melbourne University Law Review, 31(2), 539–568.Google Scholar
Powell, A., & Dupré, J.A. (forthcoming). From molecules to systems: The importance of looking both ways. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences.Google Scholar
Powell, A., O'Malley, M.A., Müller-Wille, S., Calvert, J., & Dupré, J.A. (2007). Disciplinary baptisms: A comparison of the naming stories of genetics, molecular biology, genomics and systems biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 29, 5–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Rai, A., & Boyle, J. (2007). Synthetic biology: caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. PLoS Biology, 5, URL (consulted October 2008): http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, R.C., & Stephan, A. (2007). Emergence. Biological Theory, 2(1), 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. (2006). Optimata, Entelos win simulation patents. Bio-IT World, 26 January. URL (accessed October 2008): www.bio-itworld.com/newsitems/ 2006/january/01-26-06-news-biosimulation?Itemid=19924&terms=optimataGoogle Scholar
Stallman, R. (2007). Why ‘open source’ misses the point of free software. Philosophy of the GNU Project, Free Software Foundation, 24 September. URL (accessed October 2008): www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.htmlGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, S. (2003). Enlightenment brought down to earth. History of Science, 41(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thackray, A. (Ed.) (1998). Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences. Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Sharp, L.A. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 287–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialisation of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(3), 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uehling, M.D. (2003). Model patient. Bio-IT World 15 December. URL (accessed October 2008) www.bio-itworld.com/archive/121503/trials.html?terms=Uehling+2003Google Scholar
Van Regenmortel, M.H.V. (2004). Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology. EMBO Reports, 5(11), 1016–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westerhoof, H.V., & Kell, D.B. (2007). The methodologies of systems biology. In Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F.J., Hofmeyr, J.-H.S., & Westerhoff, H.V. (Eds.), Systems biology: Philosophical foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2005). Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar