[Ecommerce] FYI: WIRED on Open-Source Biology

[Manon Ress]

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66289,00.html

Open-Source Biology Evolves

By David Cohn  |
02:00 AM Jan. 17, 2005 PT

To push research forward, scientists need to draw from the best data and
innovations in their field. Much of the work, however, is patented,
leaving many academic and nonprofit researchers hamstrung. But an
Australian organization advocating an open-source approach to biology
hopes to free up biological data without violating intellectual property
rights.

The battle lies between biotech companies like multinational Monsanto,
who can grant or deny the legal use of biological information, and
independent organizations like The Biological Innovation for Open
Society, or BIOS, and Science Commons. The indies want to give
scientists free access to the latest methods in biotechnology through
the web.

BIOS will soon launch an open-source platform that promises to free up
rights to patented DNA sequences and the methods needed to manipulate
biological material. Users must only follow BIOS' "rules of engagement,"
which are similar to those used by the open-source software community.

"There are technologies you need to innovate and then there are the
innovations themselves," said Richard Jefferson1, founder and director
of BIOS in Canberra, Australia. "But those can only happen when there is
fair access to the technologies."

Just like open-source software, open-source biology users own the
patents to their creations, but cannot hinder others from using the
original shared information to develop similar products. Any
improvements of the shared methods of BIOS, the Science Commons or other
open-source communities must be made public, as well as any health
hazards that are discovered.

BIOS has called on Brian Behlendorf2, CTO of ColabNet, to create the web
tools the open-source community platform will run on. Those should be up
in the coming weeks.

Nipping at its heels is the Science Commons. The outgrowth project of
Creative Commons will have a hand in all areas of science, not just the
life sciences like BIOS, and is getting ready to launch its open-source
community in the next two to three weeks, said John Wilbanks, executive
director of Science Commons.

Wilbanks sees Science Commons and other open-source communities as a
"neutral ground" for people to decide how much control over a patent
they want to maintain or control. "Say you are a holder of patents and
you want to make them available, you should be able to do that without
having to call a lawyer," said Wilbanks.

While free access to biological information will benefit those doing
research, companies who have invested millions in patents, on the other
hand, won't perform expensive groundbreaking research without a
guarantee that their intellectual property rights would be upheld.
"Patents attract investors, providing the resources necessary to bring
the product to market," said Brigid Quinn, deputy director of public
affairs with the U.S. patent office. "Patents are and have always been
an important part of this country's economic fabric."

On the contrary, Jefferson believes patent restrictions have compromised
billions of people who should be benefiting from new diagnostic tests or
improved genetically modified crops and medicines.

For example, biologists in Kenya might be eager to create a genetically
modified sweet potato that could allow farmers to use fewer chemical
fertilizers. But if a company owns all or part of the gene sequence, DNA
fragment or the mechanism in question, the scientists' hands are tied
unless they can pay a licensing fee. The corporations that own such
patents won't invest in research unless they know a market is waiting
for the product.

"Perhaps professors in Kenya can start a company, perhaps they can make
$300,000 a year, but that's just not on the charts for Monsanto," said
Roger Brent of Berkeley's Molecular Sciences Institute.

Under an open-source contract between scientists, just like open-source
software, developers would be free to use these methods to create new
products. The products themselves would be proprietary, but the
techniques and components used to make them would be open to all,
meaning more bio-products, competition, smaller markets and faster
improvements, Jefferson said.

If Jefferson and his fellow rebel scientists succeed, biotech companies
stand to lose their monopoly on creating integrated biological systems.
But he believes human health, safety and standards of living will all
suffer under the present patent structure.

Some fear that making the latest methods of genetic modification public
will provide terrorists with the know-how to concoct new bioweapons in
the comfort of their own garage. "Biological knowledge can be used for
good or ill and unfortunately it's easier to make a biological weapon
than it is defenses," said David Seagrest, a fellow at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies who focuses on biology and
terrorism. With free instructions on how to cook up new, improved
toxins, open-source biology could pose a threat to homeland security.

Jefferson, however, distinguishes between having access to biotech
components and the legal license to use them. The techniques for
biohacking are already public -- they can be found in IP contracts --
it's just not legal to apply them. "The people who have malice are going
to do it irrespective of whether or not it's legal," said Jefferson.

Brent and Drew Endy, assistant professor of biology at MIT, who first
coined the phrase "open source biology" at Berkeley's MSI, echoed this
distinction. "Right now anybody who wants can re-synthesize the SARS
virus," explained Brent.

Brent, Endy and researcher Robert Carlson sounded a rallying cry for
open-source biology at MSI in 1999. The idea was to give researchers and
scientists free access to the information needed to invent new biotech
products that could benefit their communities and keep the world safe.

Five years later the dream of open-source software is becoming a reality.

"This is just the kernel of open-source biology," Jefferson said.

Jefferson sees open-source biology as part of science's evolution, the
next logical step for science after the open access movement, in which
organizations like the Public Library of Science made scientific
journals freely available to anyone on the internet. Previously,
thousands of dollars were charged annually for subscriptions by journals
like Nature and Science. Now people will be able to perform the same
experiments found in these free online journals and become part of the
peer review and research process themselves.

By broadening the base of people who could hack DNA, scientists like
Brent, Endy and Jefferson believe the hacker culture values like elegant
design, creativity and sharing beneficial works of engineering for all,
will spread to biology. "I think those are virtues which the existing
world of science and engineering could gain a lot from," Brent said.

1 Correction, 01/17/2005 08:41 AM: This story has been updated to show
the correct spelling of Richard Jefferson's name. (Return to the
corrected text)

2 Correction, 01/17/2005 08:46 AM: This story has been updated to show
the correct spelling of Brian Behlendorf's name. (Return to the
corrected text)


--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607