IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use and Misuse of Material Transfer Agreements: Lessons in Proportionality from Research, Repositories, and Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Tania Bubela
  • Jenilee Guebert
  • Amrita Mishra

Abstract

Material transfer agreements exist to facilitate the exchange of materials and associated data between researchers as well as to protect the interests of the researchers and their institutions. But this dual mandate can be a source of frustration for researchers, creating administrative burdens and slowing down collaborations. We argue here that in most cases in pre-competitive research, a simple agreement would suffice; the more complex agreements and mechanisms for their negotiation should be reserved for cases where the risks posed to the institution and the potential commercial value of the research reagents is high.The material transfer agreements designed to facilitate the exchange of materials between researchers are unnecessarily burdensome and obstructive and in most cases could be replaced by simpler tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Tania Bubela & Jenilee Guebert & Amrita Mishra, 2015. "Use and Misuse of Material Transfer Agreements: Lessons in Proportionality from Research, Repositories, and Litigation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002060
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002060?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walsh, John P. & Cohen, Wesley M. & Cho, Charlene, 2007. "Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1184-1203, October.
    2. Elizabeth Popp Berman, 2015. "Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9619.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2010. "The Public and Private Sectors in the Process of Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Mouse Genetics Revolution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 153-158, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jane Nielsen & Tania Bubela & Don R C Chalmers & Amber Johns & Linda Kahl & Joanne Kamens & Charles Lawson & John Liddicoat & Rebekah McWhirter & Ann Monotti & James Scheibner & Tess Whitton & Dianne , 2018. "Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-9, August.

    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. Francesco Lissoni, 2013. "Intellectual property and university–industry technology transfer," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 7, pages 164-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
    3. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    4. Madison, Michael J & Frischmann, Brett M. & Strandburg, Katherine J., 2017. "Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1," LawArXiv af3ud, Center for Open Science.
    5. David Mowery, 2011. "Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 697-711, December.
    6. Martine R. Haas & Sangchan Park, 2010. "To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 873-891, August.
    7. Chiara Franzoni & Giuseppe Scellato & Paula Stephan, 2012. "Foreign Born Scientists: Mobility Patterns for Sixteen Countries," NBER Working Papers 18067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    9. Thompson, Neil C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A. & Mowery, David C., 2018. "University licensing and the flow of scientific knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1060-1069.
    10. Meuer, Johannes & Rupietta, Christian & Backes-Gellner, Uschi, 2015. "Layers of co-existing innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 888-910.
    11. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    12. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    13. Andrew J. Nelson, 2016. "How to Share “A Really Good Secret”: Managing Sharing/Secrecy Tensions Around Scientific Knowledge Disclosure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 265-285, April.
    14. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    15. Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao, 2012. "Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: determinants of funding success for academic scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 251-270, June.
    16. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2018. "A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Patents and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 25383, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    18. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    19. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    20. Hsing-fen Lee & Marcela Miozzo, 2015. "How does working on university–industry collaborative projects affect science and engineering doctorates’ careers? Evidence from a UK research-based university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 293-317, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pbio00:1002060. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.