# 7320
A big story this week has revolved around the `patenting’, and material transfer agreement (MTA), of MERS-CoV by Erasmus University (see CIDRAP Limits on use of samples said to delay MERS-CoV efforts).
I’ve refrained from blogging on it because I have zero expertise in this field (I know, I know. That’s never stopped me before . . . ).
Still, I feel it’s prudent in this case to defer to someone who does have expertise in this field.
Namely Professor Ian MacKay, who writes often on H7N9, MERS-CoV, and other subjects on his Virology Down Under Blog. This morning Ian looks at the MERS patenting controversy:
Patenting MERS-CoV: no hindrance to diagnosis at all.
This is not the first newly identified virus that researchers at Erasmus, or elsewhere, have patented.
They did the same for human metapneumovirus (HMPV; an endemic respiratory virus and kin to respiratory syncytial virus) after describing its discovery and characterization in 2001.
Another broad-ranging patent also listed on Google is for the human coronavirus (HCoV) NL63, discovered in 2004 by other researchers. Patenting is part of business and today a portion of science research requires proof of the ability of researchers to work with business to help produce real outcomes. Mass-produced diagnostic kits are one outcome - they are made to high standards of quality and distributed worldwide.
Research scientists can't do that alone.
The intellectual property rights issues here are complex, far beyond my pay grade, and will likely take years to be fully resolved. Redress is an issue for the courts to decide.
The bigger issue right now is ensuring the full and timely disclosure of all of the details surrounding the MERS cases in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.
And no amount of outrage on the part of the Saudis (legitimate or not) over the IP moves taken by EMC should absolve them of their responsibility to be fully, completely, and immediately transparent regarding this emerging and dangerous coronavirus.
