Introduction

A broad range of biological materials are transferred between laboratories to keep these engine rooms of innovation ticking. Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) are common vehicles for exchanging these materials, whether between laboratories in universities and research institutes or between these organisations and industry [1]. Convoluted negotiations between institutional technology transfer offices (TTOs) tend to dominate even straightforward MTA transactions [2,3,4]. Indiscriminate use of complicated MTAs could unnecessarily slow progress in the biological sciences, given that very few are ever likely to be enforced [2,3]. Our collective experience leads us to conclude that a) the main purpose of written MTAs should not be to ascribe ownership but simply to establish provenance, the pathway the material takes from its point of origin; and b) the core problem that interferes with achievement of a) is unreasonable risk aversion.

MTAs provide clear ‘chains of custody’ by documenting the paths travelled by materials [5], recording their origins and encumbrances imposed by previous agreements (including funding agreements), and listing other rights and obligations attaching to them. While MTAs serve a useful purpose, negotiations due to perceived risks can delay transfers and impose research impediments [4]. Extended negotiations are often based on overestimated fears of incurring liability through use, loss of control, or missing out on speculative commercialisation opportunities [3].

One step that has been taken to streamline MTA processes is the implementation of standard form agreements [6]. The Simple Letter Agreement (SLA) and Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement (UBMTA), developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), are a well-documented attempt to achieve the goal of simplifying exchanges between universities and research institutes. The number of signatories to the UBMTA suggests that there is widespread support for the implementation of this initiative. Despite this, many parties are unable to resist the temptation to tweak agreements, which compels organisations receiving them to carefully examine them for discrepancies, variations, or anything perceived to disadvantage the interests of their own institution [1,4,7].

Once we accept that MTAs are a necessary part of the exchange process and that simplifying transfers would increase research efficiency and be a more efficient use of administrative resources, the challenge is to determine how to improve MTA practices.

Examples of good practice

Structural genomics and computational biology represent areas of research in which there has been a longstanding commitment to principles of open access. Openness is regarded as technologically important in these fields because of a need to ensure interoperability of bioinformatics software and promote the development of common ontologies for the virtual expression of biological concepts. This is evidenced by the large number of bioinformatics software packages that are available under open source licences and on online open source repositories.

The adoption of open access principles has been less straightforward in other fields. Even within initiatives specifically designed to facilitate exchanges of materials for research purposes, there is evidence that parties can still unduly complicate the transfer process. An example is the Knockout Mouse Project, in which European repositories utilised restrictive terms for deposit and distribution, flowing, in part, from concerns about use, appropriate attribution of the source of material, and distribution of profits from commercial exploitation [8]. This led to frustration and delays rather than systemic failure of the initiative.

Other models have achieved greater success, as illustrated by the examples provided in Boxes 1 and 2.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Distribution of CRISPR-Related Plasmids (number) by Addgene (cumulative).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006031.g001

What lessons can we take from these examples in shaping strategies to facilitate cultural change and reduce perceptions of risk that may ultimately hinder the process of transfer? First, the use of distribution networks and intermediaries creates efficiencies by removing choice from the negotiating process, as illustrated by the Addgene example. Access to material via Addgene is contingent on execution of the simple online agreement by the requesting institution, leaving no room for negotiation of individual terms. Contrast this with the Knockout Mouse Consortium, in which room for individualisation remained. Another feature of such arrangements, as illustrated by BioBricks, is reduction in the number of MTAs required for a particular research project.

Second, the emphasis on ‘openness’ that is a hallmark of the open software movement, from which open bioinformatics initiatives have emerged, can be translated into other areas of biotechnology [9]. The OpenMTA is a simple, standardised agreement that enables researchers to exchange biomaterials more freely, with features such as attribution, provenance tracking, and ease of use internationally to work within the practical realities of technology transfer [10].

Third, involvement in large-scale research collaborations like BioBricks builds good relationships and trust. It also aligns motivations of the parties involved. While not every TTO will have experience in MTAs associated with large-scale collaborations, lessons can be learned from examining the fundamental bases for the success of these larger networks in facilitating free-flowing exchanges. Parties undertaking research with mutually beneficial outcomes are less likely to strategize at the expense of reaching rapid agreement. Again, lack of choice is a feature; the terms on which materials are exchanged are fixed, removing the opportunity for TTOs to modify.

How might we translate these lessons into the world of bilateral, institutional material transfers? Promoting exchange of materials on standardised, simple terms is an important first step. The real challenge lies in finding a way to implement these lessons to incorporate simplicity more broadly in entity-to-entity MTAs.

When is complexity needed?

There are undoubtedly circumstances where an escalation to complexity is necessary; for instance, when commercial parties are involved and the purpose of the exchange goes beyond research use only [3,4]. This distinction between research transfers and transfers of a commercial nature is reflected in the Addgene arrangements, which include separate considerations for industry recipients and, in accordance with the UBMTA, require written consent of the provider for commercial use by the recipient. Many commercial parties, particularly in the drug-development space, are likely to make significant investment into research activities involving licensed materials and will expect some ongoing control over research outcomes and profits. Institutional MTAs with commercial endpoints also warrant specificity with regard to authorship and acknowledgment, reservations of rights to use materials on a continuing basis, and allocation of profits.

There are other situations in which the nature of the material renders simplified provenance documentation unsuitable, even when the material is exchanged for research purposes. This is not to say that standardised agreements cannot be used for similar types of materials, but their unique qualities might require the application of individual standards. Box 3 illustrates applicable cases. An example is research involving materials that will lead to a clinical outcome: clear parameters will be required in MTAs of this nature because of ethical and benefit-sharing issues. These issues underscore exchanges of materials provided by indigenous donors.

Exchanges mediated by biobank intermediaries are also complicated by the fact that participants may be asked to consent not just to individual research projects that use their material (as is normally the case) but more generally to uses that fall into the overarching purpose for which the biobank was established. Access to biobank resources (such as the UK BioBank and similar arrangements) for research purposes thus needs careful management, going beyond the terms of generic MTAs. Another area of particular concern is the exchange of nonhuman materials sourced from natural resources, for which benefit sharing is paramount. The CBD and Nagoya Protocol attempt to provide an international framework to facilitate such exchanges.

These examples are not exclusive but illustrate the point that there are justifiable reasons for increasing the complexity of MTAs in some circumstances. In purely bilateral transactions, there is considerably more scope for institutional idiosyncrasies to overtake simplicity if risk aversion is allowed to dominate the transfer process. Many continue to adhere to a culture protecting against ‘missing out’ rather than facilitating open exchanges.

Understanding risk to overcome unreasonable aversion

Realistically, very few MTAs are likely to be monitored, and the likelihood that a risk-averse institution would embark on the highly risky course of litigation to enforce an MTA is remote [3]. In light of this, how might we encourage TTOs to acknowledge that simple transfer procedures will be appropriate in the majority of material transfers? In order to implement real change, the expectations of TTO personnel and the format of MTAs must change concurrently. This ‘combination’ of approaches has driven the success of initiatives such as Addgene, the BioBricks Foundation, and the iGEM Foundation. Under these arrangements, simplicity is essential. MTAs are standardised and simplified, and institutional adherence to these standards is mandated.

The success of Addgene, BioBricks and iGEM can in part be attributed to the common interests and goals of participants—to minimise delay in research projects that require access to research materials on reasonable terms. These common interests, originating in the open source movement, have also driven some of the more complex arrangements for transfer of materials for research purposes. The UK Biobank, for example, has developed strategies to deal with the complexities associated with ethics, consent, and benefit sharing and overcome risk aversion.

One important aspect of each of these initiatives is that they have a single gatekeeper who plays a vital role in preventing deviations. The difficulty that universities and research institutes face is that, unlike these initiatives, there is no single body that can dictate the form of MTA that is to have universal application for simple transfers and to manage the transfer process. Instead, multiple institutions must be persuaded to adopt a common approach to practices and procedures in the execution of MTAs. This requires them to recognise deficiencies in the status quo. The move to standardise MTAs in the context of transfers of sovereign genetic resources led by the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the World Health Organisation provides an example of how institutions can be drivers of change. On a different scale, it is open to national public research funding organisations to condition research grants on dissemination of materials using simplified processes. The NIH and AUTM have been particularly proactive in this regard [11].

There are a number of strategies that may reduce friction in MTA negotiations and expedite the MTA process. Applying simplicity during the process of negotiating for the transfer of materials is crucial to eradicating risk-averse behaviour. This includes, where possible, the removal of choice in the application of MTAs. Educating those involved in negotiating and drafting MTAs is fundamental, particularly through utilisation of the expertise of representative bodies.

Promoting a shift in the way that ‘success’ in material transfers is perceived within institutions is also essential. TTO personnel possess a surprisingly social view of their roles in promoting the research agendas of their institutions [6]. This supports the proposition that change in culture is possible, and one option for encouraging this is to invert current notions of risk aversion for publicly funded institutions. Rather than focusing on the perceived risks that TTOs identify in association with exchange of materials, the ‘risk’ against which TTO performance should be measured is that of nonconformity with conceptions of open sharing.

Supporting information