Was alle bezahlt haben, sollen alle nutzen können. Das ist das Steuerzahler-Argument für Open Access. Wieso sollte das nicht auch für öffentlich geförderte Forschung gelten, die zu Patenten führt?
Yarden Katz im Boston Review zum Streit um die CRISPR-Patente:
[W]e should imagine a way to distribute research products that considers the ethical and social responsibilities of scientists to the public. We can take a leaf from the software world’s book and sketch a free biology (as in “free software”) that respects these responsibilities. This will require new mechanisms for describing research ownership and sharing that are in the public interest and that support the university’s research branch.
In thinking about how to correct the patenting system’s violation of the commons, Yochai Benkler has proposed that research communities adopt open, “publicly minded” licensing of the sort used in the software field. This would allow academics to change the way their work may be used without having to wait for legal reforms. These commons-based licenses can also explicitly allow for humanitarian applications of research and technology, which are otherwise largely sidelined by private ownership. As Benkler noted, coordinated adoption by researchers of such mechanisms would give universities “substantial negotiating power with the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries.”
https://www.perlentaucher.de/magazinrundschau/2015-11-10.html (dort weitere informative Links zu CRISPR)
„Crystal Structure of Cas9 in Complex with Guide RNA and Target DNA“ by Hiroshi Nishimasu, F. Ann Ran, Patrick D. Hsu, Silvana Konermann, Soraya I. Shehata, Naoshi Dohmae, Ryuichiro Ishitani, Feng Zhang, and Osamu Nureki – Crystal Structure of Cas9 in Complex with Guide RNA and Target DNA http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.001. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.