Open source in biotechnology: Return to the origin?

Science Business recently published an article on the Biology Open Information Source initiative. Its promoter, Richard Jefferson, asserts that BIOS is explicitly modelled after the Open Source initiative in software. This may sound paradoxical. After all, science is grounded in open exchange and the sharing of information. Important scientific results, in biology, in genetics, in all other “hard” sciences, have to be published in a form that allows verification and duplication of these results. In a sense, the Open Source movement in software could be seen as an attempt to replicate this practice in an area which has been dominated by refusal of disclosure. Microsoft did not patent Windows but protected its code by commercial secrecy and copyright law.  In effect, if Windows was to be patented, Microsoft would have to disclose the inner workings of its code and would have to licence it in a less restrictive way.

So what is really the point of BIOS and other similar initiatives such as Science Commons, which is based at Massachusetts Institute of Technology? One highly controversial IP issue in biotechnology is the extent of patenting of basic discoveries. There is a strong current of thought which has been arguing strenuously that life (DNA and genes) cannot and should not be patented. On the other hand, the practice of patenting biotechnology discoveries is firmly established and widely accepted. Most geneticists today would not dream of publishing any significant research without consulting their IP advisors.

Neither BIOS not Science Commons question the legitimacy of patenting in biotech. Rather, they propose incremental measures to improve the fluidity of information exchange through the setting up of a common database (BIOS) or simplifying legal agreements (Science Commons). Evolution may be a general law of biology but a newcomer such as BIOS needs a revolutionary approach to break in. This may explain while so far BIOS, which was launched over 18 months ago, and Science Commons, which boast prestigious backing, appear to have difficulties gaining traction.