Team:British Columbia/Human Practices/IP

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 01:49, 4 October 2012

British Columbia - 2012.igem.org

Investigating Intellectual Property in iGEM

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.

Our 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, their self-assessment of their knowledge, and their 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, asking them to take our survey and pass it along to their team. We had great turnout, garnering 328 individual responses.

Best Respondents

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 others create knowledge without asking for much in return.

Demographics

These questions were relatively straightforward. We just wanted to know who was answering our survey! Happily, it looks like we got a reasonably representative sample of respondents.

Experience With IP

Unsurprisingly, the size of the "Yes" pie slice is almost the same size as the sum of "Advisors" and "Instructors" pie slices above, but let's look into that further...

While the bulk of respondents are still members with no patent experience, this breakdown reveals that approximately half of the responding advisors and instructors have patent experience and half don't.

Having a larger number of responses to this question than "Yes" answers to the previous one was perplexing. We expected those who indicated having no experience with patents to skip this question. A more sophisticated survey might have only revealed this question upon receiving a yes answer to the previous one.

This was a check-box poll, where respondents could select more than one box, and could also fill in a text field for custom "Other" responses. Some of the "Other" responses included involvement with software copyrights & patents, research in patent databases, and being in the process of obtaining a patent.

Need a for Guide

The above graph displays responses from three questions. Note that respondent's median self-assessed level of knowledge is 3, while the median desired level of knowledge is 8 and the median level thought to be obtainable from a brief guide is 6. Respondents thought that a brief guide can get them a good amount of the way to their goal, and this reinforced our motivation to produce such a guide.

It is interesting to note how many respondents want to be patent lawyers.

This check-box poll confirmed our suspicions that a FAQ-style guide was the way to go. We likely lead the respondents to that conclusion. We didn't claim to be perfect social scientists. What's a little push-polling between friends?

Reinforcing that we aren't perfect social scientists, this question should have forced the respondent to make a choice. "Both" is an easy no-thought choice that damages what we intended to learn from the question. Regardless, we still learned that respondents are generally enthusiastic to learn about both sides of patents.

Patent Knowledge

Our research for the FAQ turned up a ballpark figure $US30,000 for a biotech patent in the United States. Accordingly, it seems like the median respondent is underestimating the cost of a patent by a decimal place or two.

We turned up a ballpark numberfor this too. Three to six years is a typical length of time for the patent process to go from initial application, through prosecution, to issuance.

We suspect you'll notice a theme when we tell you we found out about this too. The Patent Cooperation Treaty gives an applicant 18 months after their first application in a participating country to apply for patents in other participating countries. These applications in the other participating countries will have an effective filing date of the first application.

IP & Current Projects

John write about applying for IP

John write about consider apply.

John write about patent concerns.

Opinions

John write about personal interest.

John write about patentable igem here.

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 After implementing our survey using Google Drive, we sent it to team <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Calgary">Calgary</a> for testing. They <b>all</b> took it, and verified it worked. Thanks, Calgary! We then sent an email to <a href="https://igem.org/Team_List?year=2012">every team's primary contact</a>, asking them to take our survey and pass it along to their team. We had great turnout, garnering 328 individual responses.</br></br></br>
-<p align=center><font face=arial narrow size=4><b>Best Respondents</b></font></p><font face=arial narrow>
+<p align=center><font face=arial narrow size=5><b>Best Respondents</b></font></p><font face=arial narrow>
 Big thanks to teams <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Bielefeld-Germany">Bielefeld</a>, <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Bonn">Bonn</a>, <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Calgary">Calgary</a>, <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:UC_Davis">UC Davis</a>, and <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Warsaw">Warsaw</a> 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 others create knowledge without asking for much in return.</br></br></br></br>