IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v70y2022ics0160791x22001464.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responsible intellectual property rights? Untangling open-source biotech adherence to intellectual property rights through DIYbio

Author

Listed:
  • Esquivel-Sada, Daphne

Abstract

Deemed as an antidote to the anti-commons crisis in biotechnosciences, biological open-source casts an imaginary of a new, open, and egalitarian biotechnological era for research and innovation. Even though seminal studies have explored the multidirectional attempts of the leading institutional effort on open-source biology, namely synthetic biology, to navigate the intellectual property (IP) regime, the question of how open-source biotech communities actually see and conceive IP system remains open. I propose to contribute to the understanding of how open-source biotechnology dovetails with IP regimes by untangling how enthusiasts of Do-It-Yourself biology (DIYbio) network relate to the IP system and patent rights. Grounded in science studies, and drawing particularly on scholarship on computer hacking and biotechnologies, I report on a discourse analysis of twenty-five semi-structured interviews with members of DIYbio, mostly located in Canada. The concept of responsible IP rights is introduced as a heuristic tool to account for interviewees' complex and multilayered relationship to the IP regime. This relationship, which can be described as a critical adherence, appears to be empirically grounded on three main discursive categories: patents rights as a dysfunctional imperative, for innovation's sake, and making is owning. Through these categories, the interviewees express their compliance with the enforcement of IP rights when needed (market protection) or desired (individual choices), while committing to an open-source approach to biotechnological innovation, which requires the free circulation of enabling resources. The conclusion suggests that such conception of IP rights is built on an idealization of IP regime as a dual-use device, in analogy to dual-use technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Esquivel-Sada, Daphne, 2022. "Responsible intellectual property rights? Untangling open-source biotech adherence to intellectual property rights through DIYbio," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:70:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x22001464
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X22001464
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kera, Denisa, 2014. "Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering: Synthetic biology and nanotechnology in the hackerspaces," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-37.
    2. Arti Rai & James Boyle, 2007. "Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    3. Morgan Meyer, 2013. "Domesticating and democratizing science: a geography of do-it-yourself biology," CSI Working Papers Series 032, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.
    4. Fox, Stephen, 2014. "Third Wave Do-It-Yourself (DIY): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 18-30.
    5. Heidi Ledford, 2013. "Myriad ruling causes confusion," Nature, Nature, vol. 498(7454), pages 281-282, June.
    6. Heidi Ledford, 2010. "Garage biotech: Life hackers," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7316), pages 650-652, October.
    7. Benoît Godin & Gérald Gaglio, 2019. "How does innovation sustain ‘sustainable innovation’?," Chapters, in: Frank Boons & Andrew McMeekin (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Innovation, chapter 2, pages 27-37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Mirowski, Philip, 2011. "Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science," Economics Books, Harvard University Press, number 9780674046467, Spring.
    9. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    10. Adenle, Ademola A. & Sowe, Sulayman K. & Parayil, Govindan & Aginam, Obijiofor, 2012. "Analysis of open source biotechnology in developing countries: An emerging framework for sustainable agriculture," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-269.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarpong, David & Ofosu, George & Botchie, David & Clear, Fintan, 2020. "Do-it-yourself (DiY) science: The proliferation, relevance and concerns," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Rezaee Vessal, Saeedeh & Partouche-Sebban, Judith & Scuotto, Veronica & Maalaoui, Adnane, 2021. "Overcoming stressful life events at do-it-yourself (DIY) laboratories. A new trailblazing career for disadvantaged entrepreneurs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    3. Andrea Saltelli & Monica Fiore, 2020. "From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Qiu, Yixin & Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Arndt, Félix & Ng, Wilson, 2023. "Microfoundations and dynamics of do-it-yourself ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Ng, Wilson & Arndt, Félix & Huang, Tori Y., 2020. "Do-It-yourself laboratories as integration-based ecosystems✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    6. Wu, Qiang & He, Qile, 2020. "DIY Laboratories and business innovation ecosystems: The case of pharmaceutical industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    7. Paul Oldham & Stephen Hall & Oscar Forero, 2013. "Biological Diversity in the Patent System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Paulina Trebska & Agnieszka Biernat-Jarka, 2021. "Determinants of Self-Supply of Food and Services in Rural Households in Poland Using Canonical Analysis," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 1034-1048.
    9. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    10. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    11. Anja Salzmann & Frode Guribye & Astrid Gynnild, 2021. "Mobile Journalists as Traceable Data Objects: Surveillance Capitalism and Responsible Innovation in Mobile Journalism," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 130-139.
    12. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    13. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    14. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    16. Agata Gurzawska & Markus Mäkinen & Philip Brey, 2017. "Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-26, September.
    17. Justus Henke, 2019. "Third Mission as an Opportunity for Professionalization in Science Management," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Meissner, Dirk & Sarpong, David & Ofosu, George & Botchie, David, 2021. "The rise of do-it-yourself (DiY) laboratories: Implications for science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    19. Fritz-Julius Grafe & Harald A. Mieg, 2021. "Precaution and Innovation in the Context of Wastewater Regulation: An Examination of Financial Innovation under UWWTD Disputes in London and Milan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-10, August.
    20. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:70:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x22001464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.