Harvard Under Scrutiny: Federal Probe Targets Patent Practices in Taxpayer-Funded Research
📷 Image source: statnews.com
The U.S. Department of Commerce has launched an unprecedented investigation into Harvard University’s handling of patents stemming from federally funded research, casting a harsh spotlight on how elite institutions profit from public money. Documents obtained by STAT+ reveal the probe focuses on whether Harvard improperly restricted access to technologies developed with government grants—a potential violation of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities to retain patent rights but mandates public benefit.
A Legal Tightrope
At the heart of the inquiry lies a delicate balance between academic innovation and corporate interests. Federal records show Harvard secured over $800 million in NIH funding between 2020-2024 alone, with dozens of resulting patents licensed to biotech and pharmaceutical companies. Investigators are now scrutinizing whether exclusive licensing deals—some exceeding a decade—stifled competition against the act’s "practical application" requirements.
The CRISPR Connection
While not explicitly named in the subpoenas, sources familiar with the matter note the timing coincides with ongoing disputes over gene-editing patents. Harvard holds key CRISPR-related intellectual property developed through NIH-backed projects, currently entangled in legal battles with MIT and UC Berkeley. "When public funding enables breakthroughs, the public shouldn’t face monopoly pricing," remarked a senior DOJ official speaking anonymously.
Broader Implications
The investigation signals a rare bipartisan alignment in Washington, with both Trump-era holdovers and Biden appointees supporting the review. It also reflects growing scrutiny of academia’s "shadow tech transfer" practices—where universities allegedly prioritize revenue over accessibility. A 2023 National Academies report found 68% of federally funded patents were exclusively licensed, often to single entities.
Harvard’s Response
University officials maintain full compliance, citing their tech transfer office’s "gold standard" reputation. "We’ve commercialized research that saved lives while returning royalties to fund further discovery," stated Provost Alan Garber in a campus memo. However, internal emails from 2022 obtained by investigators suggest debates over whether certain cancer immunotherapy licenses violated fair pricing clauses.
What Comes Next
With document requests spanning five years, the probe could take months to unfold. Legal experts warn it may trigger audits of other research powerhouses like Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Meanwhile, patient advocacy groups are seizing the moment—the Knowledge Ecology International has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for all Harvard-NIH contracts, aiming to expose what they call "double-dipping on taxpayer dollars."
#PatentReform #BayhDoleAct #CRISPR #ResearchEthics #TechTransfer
