Abstract

ABSTRACT In this paper I analyse the ethical implications of the two main competing methodologies in genomic research. I do not aim to provide another contribution from the mainstream legal and public policy perspective; rather I offer a novel approach in which I analyse and describe the patent‐and‐publish regime (the proprietary regime) led by biologist J. Craig Venter and the ‘open‐source’ methodologies led by biotechnology Nobel laureate John Sulston. The ‘open‐source methodologies’ arose in biotechnology as an alternative to the patent‐and‐publish regime in the wake of the explosion in computer technology. Indeed, the tremendous increase in computer technology has generated a corresponding increase in the pace of genomics research. I conclude this paper by arguing that while the patent‐and‐publish method is a transactional method based on the exchange of extrinsic goods (patents in exchange for research funds), the free and open‐source methodology (FLOSS)1 is a transformational method based on a visionary ideal of science, which leads to prioritizing intrinsic goods in scientific research over extrinsic goods.