"
Team:British Columbia/Human Practices/IP
From 2012.igem.org
m (moved Team:British Columbia/Patent to Team:British Columbia/Human Practices/IP: Hierarchy consistency.) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
To accomplish this, we have decided to make a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, patent application flow chart, and a decision tree. | To accomplish this, we have decided to make a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, patent application flow chart, and a decision tree. | ||
| - | + | ==Survey== | |
| + | |||
| + | Our survey methodology was relatively simple. We wanted to confirm our suspicions that other iGEM teams knew as little about "patents and stuff" as we did. We then came up with a set of questions for other teams, trying to evaluate their existing knowledge and also their evaluation and desire, if any, to increase that knowledge. Some of us wondered if we'd see evidence of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect Dunning–Kruger effect]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | After implementing our survey using Google Drive, we sent it to team Calgary for testing. They <b>all</b> took it, and verified it worked. Thanks, Calgary! We then sent an email to [https://igem.org/Team_List?year=2012 every team's] primary contact, usually by looking their email address up on their associated university website. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===iGEM Teams=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Big thanks to teams [[Team:Bielefeld-Germany|Bielefeld]], [[Team:Bonn|Bonn]], [[Team:Calgary|Calgary]], [[Team:UC_Davis|UC Davis]], and [[Team:Warsaw|Warsaw]] for having more than 80% of their team members, advisors, and instructors answer our survey! They represent the best parts of the iGEM community, helping other create knowledge without demanding anything in return. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Intellectual Property Knowledge=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Intellectual Property and iGEM=== | ||
Revision as of 06:44, 3 October 2012
Working with novel concepts such as tunable consortia and distribution of the Dsz pathway, the UBC team became curious of whether iGEM projects would be owned as intellectual property (IP). We also realize that almost all research projects require the use of some sort of IP-related component. Even if iGEM teams are not planning to patent their own work, they will likely come across something (e.g., reagent, strain, etc.) that is already patented by someone else. To use these materials properly, we need to understand how to navigate around the legal aspect of patents.
The purpose of this part of our Human Practices project is to convey IP knowledge to the community in an iGEM-relevant fashion. We surveyed various iGEM teams about their interest in such an IP primer and asked them about what they already knew, what the would like to know, and how they would like the information presented to them. In constructing our guide, we have met up with professions in the field of biotechnological patenting and incorporated the results of these meetings here. In this respect, our project will serve as a connection between iGEM and experts outside our community.
We do not intend to make an argument for or against the idea of intellectual property. Our aim is to create a user-friendly platform for all iGEM teams to learn about relevant IP issues. It will present information in a manner that will allow users to make an informed decision about what stance to take when confronted with IP-related decisions. In addition, the guide will help teams navigate through the processes of obtaining or using patents and build a foundation upon which they can then proceed with their projects.
To accomplish this, we have decided to make a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, patent application flow chart, and a decision tree.
Contents |
Survey
Our survey methodology was relatively simple. We wanted to confirm our suspicions that other iGEM teams knew as little about "patents and stuff" as we did. We then came up with a set of questions for other teams, trying to evaluate their existing knowledge and also their evaluation and desire, if any, to increase that knowledge. Some of us wondered if we'd see evidence of a Dunning–Kruger effect.
After implementing our survey using Google Drive, we sent it to team Calgary for testing. They all took it, and verified it worked. Thanks, Calgary! We then sent an email to every team's primary contact, usually by looking their email address up on their associated university website.
iGEM Teams
Big thanks to teams Bielefeld, Bonn, Calgary, UC Davis, and Warsaw for having more than 80% of their team members, advisors, and instructors answer our survey! They represent the best parts of the iGEM community, helping other create knowledge without demanding anything in return.
