Open-source biotechnology

Open-source biotechnology is the extension of open sourceopen-source principles, which initiated in software development, to biotechnology research and development. UseMany open-source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology and are sometimes referred to as open-source synthetic biology. Open-source biology is sometimes used interchangeably with open-source biotechnology, but the term open-source biotechnology has declined in use since around 2012. Open-source biology is sometimes used interchangeably with open-source biotechnology. Many open-source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology and are sometimes referred to as open-source synthetic biology. In synthetic biology, reprogramming biology or redesigning organisms for useful purposes, such as increased food production and fighting disease, is thought of in an analogous manner to improving microchips in computing.

In the 1980s, the free software movement paved the way for an open sourceopen-source approach to technology licensing, development, and commercialisationcommercialization. The open sourceopen-source movement was a response to restrictive copyright licensing practices used by commercial software developers and aimed to reconcile public interest in broad access to software development tools with the economic self interestself-interest of intellectual property owners. An analogous movement arose in the field of biotechnology in response to concerns that the expansion of intellectual property protection would hinder ongoing innovation. Open sourceOpen-source biotechnology proponents aimed to preserve access to and freedom to use the tools needed for research and development. The granting of too many property rights in biotechnology research has been blamed for inefficiencies that limit the social and economic potential. However, the right balance is needed in terms of intellectual property protection to secure investment in innovative activity. Conferring value on information can help foster the exchange of that information.

Author, entrepreneur, and scientist, Rob Carlson has expressed reservations about the using the term open sourceopen-source biology or open sourceopen-source biotechnology, disagreeing with the analogy between software and biology. Carlson stated that he preferedprefers the term open biology to refer to access to the tools and skills to participate in innovation through distributed research.

BIOS was established under the leadership of Richard Jefferson at the Center for the Application for Molecular Biology to International Agriculture (CAMBIA) in Canberra, Australia, to make information and technologies freely available on September 30, 2004. The initiative was partially intended in part to help scientists in countries that could not afford the licensing fees to use agricultural biotechnology. Biological innovations and research tools under BIOS include agricultural and animal-breeding tools, genetic resources, medical treatments, and environmental remedies. The costs in running BIOS were set up to be covered by sponsors and “non-compulsory” subscription fees paid by licensees. The BIOS initiative received a US USD$1-million1 million grant from Rockefeller Foundation to hire patent and computer specialists to work on extending CAMBIA’s patent database and licensing templates.

Stanford bioengineering professor and synthetic biology leader, Drew Endy, founded BioBricks Foundation, which organizes the production of standardized DNA parts (BioBricks) for use in synthetic biology. Others can freely use BioBricks in a similar way to open-source software projects.

Open sourceOpen-source biotechnology is the extension of open source principles, which initiated in software development, to biotechnology research and development. Use of the term open sourceopen-source biotechnology has declined in use since around 2012. Open sourceOpen-source biology is sometimes used interchangeably with open sourceopen-source biotechnology. Many open sourceopen-source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology and are sometimes referred to as open sourceopen-source synthetic biology. In synthetic biology, reprogramming biology or redesigning organisms for useful purposes such as increased food production and fighting disease, is thought of in an analogous manner to improving microchips in computing.

Open source biotechnology is the extension of open source principles, which initiated in software development, to biotechnology research and development. Use of the term open source biotechnology has declined in use since around 2012. Open source biology is sometimes used interchangeably with open source biotechnology. Many open source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology and are sometimes referred to as open source synthetic biology. In synthetic biology, reprogramming biology or redesigning organisms for useful purposes such as increased food production and fighting disease, is thought of in an analogous manner to improving microchips in computing.

In the 1980s the free software movement paved the way for an open source approach to technology licensing, development and commercialisation. The open source movement was response to restrictive copyright licensing practices used by commercial software developers and aimed to reconcile public interest in broad access to software development tools with the economic self interest of intellectual property owners. An analogous movement arose in the field of biotechnology in response to concerns that the expansion of intellectual property protection would hinder ongoing innovation. Open source biotechnology proponents aimed to preserve access to and freedom to use the tools needed for research and development. The granting of too many property rights in biotechnology research has been blamed for inefficiencies that limit the social and economic potential. However intellectualthe propertyright protectionbalance is needed in terms of intellectual property protection to secure investment in innovative activity. and conferringConferring value on information can help foster the exchange of that information.

Author, entrepreneur and scientist, Rob Carlson has expressed reservations about the using the term open source biology or open source biotechnology, disagreeing with the analogy between software and biology. Carlson stated that he prefered the term open biology to refer to access to the tools and skills to participate in innovation through distributed research.

Stanford bioengineering professor and synthetic biology leader, Drew Endy, founded BioBricks Foundation which organizes the production of standardized DNA parts (BioBricks) for use in synthetic biology. Others can freely use BioBricks in a similar way to open-source software projects.

Open source biotechnology is the extension of open source principles, which initiated in software development, to biotechnology research and development. Use of the term open source biotechnology has declined in use since around 2012. Open source biology is sometimes used interchangeably with open source biotechnology. The termMany open source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology isand alsoare usedsometimes referred to as many open source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology.

Use of the term open source biotechnology has declined in use since around 2012. Open source biology is sometimes used interchangeably with open source biotechnology. The term open source synthetic biology is also used as many open source initiatives in life sciences come from the field of synthetic biology.

In the 1980s the free software movement paved the way for an open source approach to technology licensing, development and commercialisation. The open source movement was response to restrictive copyright licensing practices used by commercial software developers and aimed to reconcile public interest in broad access to software development tools with the economic self interest of intellectual property owners. An analogous movement arose in the field of biotechnology in response to concerns that the expansion of intellectual property protection would hinder ongoing innovation. Open source biotechnology proponents aimed to preserve access to and freedom to use the tools needed for research and development. The granting of too many property rights in biotechnology research has been blamed for inefficiencies that limit the social and economic potential. However intellectual property protection is needed to secure investment in innovative activity and conferring value on information can help foster the exchange of that information.

BIOS was established under the leadership of Richard Jefferson at the Center for the Application for Molecular Biology to International Agriculture (CAMBIA) in Canberra Australia to make information and technologies freely available on September 30, 2004. The initiative was intended in part to help scientists in countries that could not afford licensing fees to use agricultural biotechnology. Biological innovations and research tools under BIOS include agricultural and animal-breeding tools, genetic resources, medical treatments and environmental remedies. The costs in running BIOS were set up to be covered by sponsors and “non-compulsory” subscription fees paid by licensees. The BIOS initiative received a US $1-million grant from Rockefeller Foundation to hire patent and computer specialists to work on extending CAMBIA’s patent database and licensing templates.

In the 1980s the free software movement paved the way for an open source approach to technology licensing, development and commercialisation. The open source movement was response to restrictive copyright licensing practices used by commercial software developers and aimed to reconcile public interest in broad access to software development tools with the economic self interest of intellectual property owners. An analogous movement arose in the field of biotechnology in response to concerns that the expansion of intellectual property protection would hinder ongoing innovation. Open source biotechnology proponents aimed to preserve access to and freedom to use the tools needed for research and development.