Question about culture/business/whatever of medical science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JQP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Medical Science
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, participants explore how new scientific processes and methods, particularly in fertility and genetics, are shared or protected after discovery. Generally, researchers publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, which allows for scientific validation and dissemination of knowledge. This process is crucial for reproducibility, a key tenet of scientific inquiry. However, the potential for financial gain often leads inventors to seek patents, which protect their intellectual property and can delay sharing details until the patent is secured. There is a distinction between academic researchers, who are expected to publish regularly, and private sector innovators like Craig Venter or the team behind Dolly the sheep, who may not follow the same publishing norms. The conversation raises questions about the motivations behind sharing new methods, suggesting that while some may choose to keep innovations secret to maintain a competitive edge, the broader scientific community often benefits from open sharing of knowledge. This leads to rapid adoption of new techniques across the field, despite the initial inclination to guard proprietary information.
JQP
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm pretty much a science noob. When some lab discovers a new process for fertility, or a new genetic test, or a new method for making clones or stem cells or whatever, how is this process or method shared? Or is it shared? Do they go out and get patents? Guard their secrets? Share them for the benefit of mankind, sell them, what?

A good example is Venter's announcement that his group is close to what he calls artificial life. Will he be sharing the procedures he develops? If so, with whom, and how? Are there any books or other learning materials that explain everything a curious person could want to know about these aspects of the culture/business/whatever of life sciences, medical sciences, etc?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no one answer to this question.

In general, from an academic point of view, as soon as you develop something new in the field, you write up your work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. That way it is subject to rigorous scientific evaluation before it becomes open knowledge. Professors and academics are expected to publish on a regular basis.

On the other hand, as some processes or ideas can lead to significant financial gain for the inventor, the inventor can seek a patent to protect his or her intellectual property. Sometimes people can be tight-lipped about such ideas until the patent is issued, which can take time.
 
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "from an academic point of view"? To whom does this generality apply? People like Venter? The folks who cloned Dolly?

When you "write something up" for peer review, what does that mean? You're giving away the farm, so to speak? I guess so, since part of the purpose of peer review is reproducibility, right? After all it's not really science if it can't be reproduced, right?

You say "before it becomes open knowledge," but is that much of a distinction? I mean, it isn't hard to get hold of stuff submitted for peer review is it?
Professors and academics are expected to publish on a regular basis
Sure, but that doesn't apply to e.g. Venter or the Dolly guys, does it?

On the other hand, as some processes or ideas can lead to significant financial gain for the inventor, the inventor can seek a patent to protect his or her intellectual property. Sometimes people can be tight-lipped about such ideas until the patent is issued, which can take time.

I don't understand. Why wouldn't they be tight-lipped after a patent is issued, too? Say I patent a process for use during IVF to correct a gene that causes Cystic Fibrosis (or whatever), what have I gained by patenting it? And is this normally how this sort of thing would be done, assuming I'm working for a private firm? And if I'm working in academia, I'm assumed to give it away for prestige and a bigger office?

I'm mystified how new methods propagate. If I'm in private practice and I develop a new super-effective fertility treatment, wouldn't it behoove me to hoard this knowledge and make everyone line up at my clinic? Yet, this doesn't seem to be the way it goes. It seems that before long, everyone's using the new methods.
 
After a year of thought, I decided to adjust my ratio for applying the US/EU(+UK) schools. I mostly focused on the US schools before, but things are getting complex and I found out that Europe is also a good place to study. I found some institutes that have professors with similar interests. But gaining the information is much harder than US schools (like you have to contact professors in advance etc). For your information, I have B.S. in engineering (low GPA: 3.2/4.0) in Asia - one SCI...
Bit Britain-specific but I was wondering, what's the best path to take for A-Levels out of the following (I know Y10 seems a bit early to be thinking about A-levels, but my choice will impact what I do this year/ in y11) I (almost) definitely want to do physics at University - so keep that in mind... The subjects that I'm almost definitely going to take are Maths, Further Maths and Physics, and I'm taking a fast track programme which means that I'll be taking AS computer science at the end...
I graduated with a BSc in Physics in 2020. Since there were limited opportunities in my country (mostly teaching), I decided to improve my programming skills and began working in IT, first as a software engineer and later as a quality assurance engineer, where I’ve now spent about 3 years. While this career path has provided financial stability, I’ve realized that my excitement and passion aren’t really there, unlike what I felt when studying or doing research in physics. Working in IT...

Similar threads

Back
Top