Overview

The legal frameworks surrounding synthetic biology are critically important because they determine what type of research can be undertaken, by selecting for research that is legally allowable, available and has potential commercial implications. However, scientists often fail to effectively lobby for frameworks that support their research needs whilst the current law remains inadequate.¹

Our UNSW team discovered, as part of our foray into commercialisation and due diligence on our scaffold elements, that biotechnological patent law is difficult to comprehend from the scientific perspective. In Australia particularly, the legal test for patents is long and convoluted, and requires a thorough understanding of previous cases.¹ However, our team successfully interpreted the law to conclude that our scaffold was not patentable (reinforcing our modular ‘Foundational Advance’ technology approach) and that we could use our preferred protein-protein bonding mechanism.

Considering this context, the UNSW team has come up with a creative solution – we have created a scientist’s guide to writing a policy proposal for government change, and written an example submission. We have also documented our discussions with various stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry, intellectual property academics, the UNSW Law Society, and the 2018 Pasteur Paris iGEM team.

Figure 1: Flowchart diagram of legal processes.

Relevance

The legal sphere may seem divorced from the practice of science in the laboratory, but in reality, they are closely intertwined, with three key points of intersection.

Considered Analysis

The Assemblase system has posed a number of legal challenges for the team, with these challenges arising from the very beginning of the project.

Patents

Early on, the team had questions about the possibility of patenting the new, invented system. Early advice was sought from one of the team mentors (Daniel Winter), which essentially stated that genetic sequences were not patentable or protectable, and therefore, there was no possibility of patenting the invention. However, the advice lacked clarity as to the actual reasons why that was so. Further research was then conducted into the relevant legal decisions establishing genetic sequence protection law, particularly the High Court of Australia decision in Myriad Genetics v D’Arcy.² Such research later showed that in actuality, it was the DNA sequence of the proteins which was not protectable – rather than the actual structure and design of the scaffold.^{2; 8; 9} There is an equivalent US decision as well; Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, although the scope of protection available differs between the two decisions.¹⁰ Dr Alexandra George (Senior Lecturer at the University of New South Wales, Intellectual Property) was also consulted regarding some of the particular aspects of the law in order for the team to then evaluate if our invention would fall under the protected category. Given the potential patenting issues, we decided not to proceed with trying to patent the invention, and refocused the project as a foundational technology designed to be accessible to all. The legal reason behind this decision comes from the lack of ‘novelty’ once sequences are removed from contention.⁹

Figure 2: One of our UNSW Australia team members, Megan, at the Federal Court of Australia.

SpyTag/Catcher

Further patenting issues were encountered when the team decided to use SpyTag/Catcher and SnoopTag/Catcher as part of the scaffold. Legal research revealed that SpyTag/Catcher was patented in the US, but we could not find an Australian patent.¹¹ This meant that we could use the SpyTag/Catcher system (which we did), as neither intellectual property provisions in the bilateral Australia - USA free trade agreement, nor those in the worldwide TRIPPS treaty, make US patents enforceable in Australia. ^{12; 13} Both agreements are more concerned with ensuring that the requirements for patenting, and protections offered once patents are granted, are similar internationally. As a result, our project used the SpyTag/Catcher system instead of the unpatented SdyTag/Catcher system, which was a better result as SdyTag/Catcher is much more cross-reactive with SnoopTag/Catcher.¹⁴ However, given the extensive research that had to be conducted to arrive at this position, the team began to consider how we might be able to push for systemic change.

Funding

As a result, consultations were sought with Lan Le (Research Ethics and Compliance Support) and Brad Walsh (CEO of Minomic International Ltd., which can be read about in our Journal. These consultations, in addition to speaking with Carl Stubbings (Head of Commercialisation, Minomic International Ltd.) at our team’s symposium, brought to our attention one other important impact legal protection has on science – it plays a major role in determining to which research money flows. Lan spoke about how legal (and ethics) approval was becoming a prerequisite for any grant funding, while Brad and Carl spoke about how legal protection allows them to capitalise on their investment into research – which is essential for them to have more funds to reinvest in research. Further research into this area revealed that the link between possible legal protection and funding is quite substantial. ^{6; 7} For our iGEM team, in applying for grants we found that our research wasn’t eligible for many opportunities, with substantially more opportunities available for research into direct medical applications, where there is a better chance of making a profit.

Creative Options: Policy Submissions

As a result, our team is convinced that the current balance between legal protectionism and encouraging innovation is off – one more voice in what is a continuing public policy debate in Australia.¹ However, in considering how we could creatively contribute our voice and experience to the conversation, the team has discovered a ‘missing link’ of communication between science and the law, despite their many points of intersection. Scientific researchers outside of big corporations often do not contribute to the debate about how to best construct the law which they use every day – with the clearest example being the 2016 Intellectual Property Arrangements public inquiry receiving only two submissions from this group of scientists out of 620 pre- and post-report submissions. One possible way to re-establish this link is by writing to government, which is why the UNSW team’s creative solution was to write a policy submission guide and example submission.

The policy submission, and suggestions for improvement, were critically evaluated and analysed in light of comments from Dr Alexandra George and the Pasteur Paris iGEM team. The Pasteur team particularly gave us insight into the differences between the civil law European regime and the Australian process, and Dr Alexandra George also gave insight into how the French system’s benefits are replicated here, but in a slightly different way.

Figure 3: Screenshot from a Skype call conducted between UNSW Australia and Pasteur Paris.

Integration

The team’s research into the legal frameworks and implications on scientific research has affected the direction of our project. Firstly, it affected the decision of whether to patent the Assemblase system, by providing the framework to discuss the likelihood of a successful protection claim. As legal information gathered suggested that a patent was an unlikely outcome, we refocused the system onto modularity, using ‘ideal’ test enzymes. It also affected the way we consulted with other academics and people in industry, as we were more open with our ideas, and they could give us better feedback (being more directed towards the project).

Figure 4: The Assemblase scaffold with the Tag/Catcher systems.

Secondly, it affected the decision of which covalent protein attachment system was going to be chosen to use with the scaffold. Initial legal research had made us aware of the patent system, and further research was undertaken to establish whether an Australian patent was held for the system we wanted to use. We also researched whether that patent would stop our use of the system (educational exceptions to patents) and whether a US patent which did exist would stop our use of the system. Fortunately, using the research we came to a conclusion that the best systems to use (SpyTag/Catcher and SnoopTag/Catcher) were not protected in Australia, and that we could use them.^{5; 7; 8} The legal information gathered also led us to present an alternative in case of protection; the use of SnoopTag/Catcher and SdyTag/Catcher systems, being that these were not patented in both relevant countries of the United States and Australia.

There were also several indirect effects of legal systems on our project. Namely, the availability of certain methodologies in sufficient detail to allow them to be replicated within the modelling aspect of the project. It seemed that in some of the key papers, writers were trying to patent part of their research, and so did not publish very many details on their method – which proved to be challenging when our team tried to replicate part of their research using our enzymes. Additionally, it appears that the legal system fed into the lack of funding opportunities available; as outlined above, the lack of legal protection is associated with a lack of funding opportunities, particularly from independent companies, as they look for inventions which can give them a commercial edge in the market.^{5; 6}

Outcomes

• How to Write a Policy Submission (Guide for Scientists).
• Example Policy Submission.
• Public discussion on the way law affects science;
• Symposium on the Australian Synthetic Biology Landscape.
• Presentation to an Environmental Humanities university course.