"The Open Source movement is infectious, it seems. It
has bubbled up in the field of bioinformatics â€" gene
research software. Gene research is already a burgeoning area of
activity, which is predicted to deliver numerous benefits to the
health industry. It is also an area where software counts and where
universities have managed to prosper from their activities. US
universities lodge about 2000 patents each year, many in
bioinformatics, and these patents contribute a good deal of revenue
â€" an amount estimated at about $5 billion per annum,
or ten percent of their total budgets. Thus Open Source activities
in this area are not universally welcomed.
Nevertheless, Steven Brenner, a bioinformatics researcher at the
University of California, Berkeley made it a condition of his post
that he be allowed to distribute his software code in an open
source manner. The rationale for this is not so much open source
idealism, but the fact that source code distribution is important
to maintaining software accuracy. If the source is hidden, then
bugs have a tendency to persist and when, for example, you are
searching large genetic databases, the consequences of software
error can be severe - perhaps delaying the discovery of important
genetic patterns or the finding of cures.
This open source situation is worth watching, because there are
conflicting forces in action. In the US the Bayh-Dole Act allows
federally funded universities to make exclusive licensing
arrangements with private companies and to profit from any
resulting patents accordingly. This they have done, as the $5
billion per annum clearly demonstrates. An open source free for all
would threaten this in respect of software. However open source
advocates argue that the universities are publicly funded and the
public should not be “charged
twiceâ€. Both sides of the argument have a point."
