Hey, there! Log in / Register
Berkeley not very genial with Harvard, MIT over biotech patents
By adamg on Fri, 08/02/2019 - 11:59am
The Harvard Crimson has the details in the dispute over who discovered a particular gene-changing technique first; Berkeley is using words like "pattern of deception" and "cherry-picked data" in a complaint filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Harvard and MIT volleys back with words like "baseless."
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
a music sckool has gene
a music sckool with gene-editing labs ?
UC Berkeley
Not Berklee College of Music!
OOOOHHHH! I like the other one better!
BSM with gene editing, now THAT would be awesome! Reanimated John Bonham with two more arms to start with, regenerative soul serum to Nashville, STAT! Count me in!
MIT played the game better
Charpentier et al at Berkeley wrote about the technique first and had CRISPR cas9 stuff working in a test tube.
A few months later Broad claimed success in editing cells of mammals and filed for their patents with the key trick being that Broad paid USPTO for fast-track review on the patent.
In 2014 Broad was issued the patents and the shitstorm began.
The fight over this has all the things you need for a proper slug fest. Big commercial implications, lots of mainstream media attention ("CRISPR babies!") but the individual involved also have skin in the game because the basic discovery behind cas9 editing is very likely to win a Nobel Prize one of these years
Big Question!
Who funded this research?