In most institutions, researchers themselves are not allowed to sign outgoing or incoming EPAs for their institutions. A.A. must be reviewed and approved by a licensed institutional official. Agreements that have not been signed by an institutional official may not be valid or enforceable. These functions are usually managed by the Office of Research Administration (Sponsored Programs) or by the office that manages the transfer of IP and technology for the institution. Since the researcher using the material is ultimately responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the MTA, most A.A. require the signature of the recipient of the material who acknowledges the acknowledgement of their responsibilities and obligations under the agreement. Scientists have traditionally freely exchanged research materials, and an important criterion for scientific publication was the ability of other researchers to experimentally reproduce and test published results. The ability to replicate results often depends on access to the underlying biological materials or information, but this access is not guaranteed today. So what has changed? Perhaps the most significant change has been the narrowing of the gap between basic research and commercial developments, particularly in the field of health research, but also in agriculture.4 Materials, which would previously have been almost exclusively useful for basic research purposes, are increasingly seen as directly useful commercially, and this trend has given birth to a new generation of researchers and companies that focus on: using new research tools to discover new business goals.
valuable properties, genes or compounds. Especially in the case of companies, they may be reluctant to share their « crown jewels » without guaranteeing the protection of their business interests. As a result of the Bayh Dole Act, many universities are actively using the patent system as a means of transferring research results to industry. In addition, universities are conducting more and more research, encouraged by industry. As a result, they may have similar concerns to those of private companies. A company traditionally unoccupied with a university`s use of its property may now have the right for its proprietary materials to lead to valuable inventions or even to the encouragement of a competitor`s business interests. Universities and non-profit research organizations have also become much more aware and protect research material. This has resulted in a slow but steady evaporation of the unconditional transfer of research material between scientists in general and, in particular, between industry scientists and universities.
Confidentiality agreements still limit the use of proprietary information to a specific purpose, for example. B the evaluation of a licensing technology. Violation of a confidentiality agreement may lead the victim to seek rights to omission and cash damages. Since A.A. are contractual agreements between two or more parties, agreements generally do not have the geographical or temporal limits of patented technologies (patents are territorial, granted by countries, with limited deadlines, usually 20 years after filing) and can therefore be much broader than the scope of rights conferred by patents. Interestingly, an assessment of the property rights related to « GoldenRice » showed that 44 patented products or processes and at least 15 materials, many of which are submitted, were potentially used in development.5 When navigating through the intellectual and technical property landscape around « GoldenRice », Potrykus indicated that restrictions imposed by an MTA were particularly problematic6. Protecting sensitive information from disclosure to others. . . .