On Making Research Pay For Itself

Governments award money (take), research is produced (make), which - unless a patent facilitates private ownership for a short time - becomes part of the scientific commons (waste).

September 11, 2025


Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up receive weekly letters rooted in curiosity, care and connection.

Know someone who will enjoy The Scholarly Letter? Forward it to them.

All previous editions of The Scholarly Letter are available on our website.

Online Thumbnail Credits: National Gallery of Art, Open Access Collection; Credit Line: William B. O'Neal Fund

Hi Scholar,

The argument advanced by this essay is, I must warn you, flawed in many ways. It was not written in the hope that you, dear Scholar, would upon finishing it nod your head and say "that was correct". Rather, this essay has been crafted in the hope that you will finish it and say "that was interesting". 

On Making Research Pay For Itself

- Written by The Tatler

For the last 11 years, an intense legal battle has been going on regarding who gets to own - and therefore profit from - a technology developed on a foundation of publicly funded academic research. CRISPR-Cas9 is a technology capable of editing genes within living organisms; potential applications of the technology range from personalized medicine to drought resistant corn and everything in-between. The intellectual property while under patent is worth billions annually in licensing fees - hence the prolonged fighting over it. Once the patent expires and the technology enters the public domain, its value is not likely to drop. 

This Letter is for Paid Subscribers

Become a paid subscriber to read the rest of this Essay and access our full archive.

Already a paying subscriber? Sign In.

Paid subscribers receive an edition of The Scholarly Letter every Thursday: :

  • • Two editions of 🍎The Digest every month
  • • Two editions of 🍏 The Thursday Essay