[jimrandomh]

This is part of an ongoing dispute between Jinek et al at Berkeley and Zhang et al at the Broad Institute. Both groups did important work on CRISPR-CAS9, and now they're fighting over credit, a patent, and (probably) a Nobel prize. Eric Lander, head of the Broad Institute, recently published an article "The Heroes of CRISPR" which emphasizes his own institution's role and downplays Berkeley's. Michael Eisen, a professor at Berkeley, wrote this article to emphasize Berkeley's role and downplay Broad's. Lander has, apparently, been in a fight like this before, with Craig Venter's group over credit for being first to sequence the human genome.

My own position is that in a sane world, there would be no patent and the groups would share the Nobel. The patent ownership dispute is the only reason there has to be a fight at all, and while patents on techniques in biology aren't nearly as absurd and destructive over patents on software, I think they're almost certainly net negative overall.

[Q6T46nT668w6i3m]

While there’s a patent issue, this is an issue of attribution (i.e. ego). I know most would prefer either a non-profit (The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard) or a public institution (University of California, Berkley) than some commercial entity.

[michaelhoffman]

The Broad Institute has given an exclusive license to a commercial entity (Editas Medicine) for certain uses of CRISPR. I don't imagine UC would behave any differently.

[benrapscallion]

This article has a little more background: http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/25/why-eric-lander-morphed/

[WildUtah]

My experience with software patents makes me believe that Lander and Zhang, being part of the group that most aggressively pursued patents, are scam artists that should be drummed out of science forever. I actually have to remind myself not to feel hostility toward them.

I know it's not valid reasoning but it would be almost certainly right in software. I'm pretty sure software patents are poisoning the whole patent system both from the inside and in public opinion.

[tomweingarten]

After reading the article, it appears that the author shares your position that both groups should share the credit, FWIW