The Skinny on Mouse Collaborations

Courtesy of Moffa Photography Researchers have until August 1st to make their views known on a proposed policy for sharing genetically modified mice and mutant strains bred for research. The policy applies to both knockout and transgenic mice, inbred and mutant strains, as well as associated data and tools, such as DNA vectors and embryonic stem cells. Early reviews of the National Institutes of Health's draft statement from professional organizations were positive, perhaps because the agency couched the statement as a strong suggestion to researchers, rather than as a rule for NIH grant applicants. "Unnecessary delay of publication and prolonged exclusive use of the mice are not in the best interests of the research community or the public health," says the NIH on its extensive Web site explaining the intricacies of the policy (www.nih.gov/science/models/mouse/sharing/index.html). The mouse-sharing policy clarifies NIH's position on one of the most important research tools in the lab. Mice data are essential to the progress of science, and anyone using public funds to breed them better be ready to share. That goes for recipients of small-business innovation grants and those involved in NIH contracts and cooperative agreements. The draft policy suggests that researchers who do not want to take on the burden of shipping mice to colleagues can deposit them with commercial breeders or national repositories, such as the NIH-funded Mutant Mouse Regional Resource Centers (www.mmrrc.org). Once the stuff of science fiction, knockout mice designed as disease models are now standard fare in life science research. In recent years, however, the Oncomouse (controlled by DuPont) and the Cre-lox mouse technology (belonging to Bristol-Myers Squibb) have caused controversy in the research community, as investigators protested what they viewed as onerous conditions on use of the animals. NIH worked with the corporate powers on agreements that supposedly protect academic access, but researchers continue to balk, reporting that the deals look better on paper than they are in the lab. In a written analysis of the draft mouse-sharing policy, the general counsel of a major mouse repository said it underscores the agency's distaste for the "reach-through" claims, the rights a research toolmaker asserts against a discovery made using the tool. These claims made the Oncomouse and Cre-lox animals problematic, according to David Einhorn, attorney for the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, home to more than 3,000 strains of mice. Things get really tricky when researchers are asked to hand out options for rights to their potential product to several makers of research tools. By the time the principal investigator has handed out options to the mouse developer, the software developer, and the assay developer, there may be little left of the discovery from which the PI enjoys benefit. NIH's draft policy asks investigators to make sure that the research agreements they sign with commercial sponsors do not conflict with the agency's policy against reach-through claims. "Hopefully, this reaffirmation will help discourage their use by the private sector," Einhorn says. Peg Brickley (pegbrickley@hotmail.com) is a freelance writer in Philadelphia. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

The Skinny on Mouse Collaborations

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of