[redlollipop]

If you read the article, the "complexity" refers to the lack of translation from bench to clinic. IP is the fundamental currency to attract investment to get scientific discoveries through the regulatory process. You can still have "open science" in the sense you are using this term and have patents; see CRISPR/Cas9 as a prime example.

[thaw13579]

I'd suggest reading a bit farther into the article:

"[Rouleau] says the kind of early-stage science that the institute does is not really worth protecting. “There is a fair amount of patenting by people at the institute, but the outcomes have not been very useful,” he says, adding that the institute would rather provide data that others could use to develop patentable medicines. “It comes down to what is the reason for our existence? It's to accelerate science, not to make money."

I think the main point is that most scientific discoveries don't need to make it through some regulatory process, because they are knowledge (and not technology). I think CRISPR is a good example of something that does benefit from that model, though.

[redlollipop]

There are many reasons for why the "outcomes have not been very useful," so there's not much point in speculating. Suffice it to say if patents have been filed in the past (i.e. some number of people thought their research was worth protecting) and researchers at a given institution are still allowed to file patents on their work, it makes no sense to take away the supporting resources that the institution is supposed to provide to help in filing patents.

[thaw13579]

I don't mean to diminish the value of patents, but in this case, it's safe to say there is biological complexity limiting the translation to treatment. As someone working in this area, I wish there were more potentially patentable material...