There has been a number of empirical research on the evidence of the myths against human gene #patent. One of the arguments against #gene patent is that it brings tragedy of the anti-commons which means a single resource having numerous patents. This makes access very expensive. Rebecca Eisenberg, however, stated in her article "Patenting the Human Genome" (1990) that patents do not pose any problems to research as the policymakers made it out to be. Rather, it poses problems to the very expressed laws of the government of utilization of inventions.
Counterarguments to myths:
According to Walsh, a 2003 survey showed that even with the increasing patents, academic researchers were able to access the knowledge without any problems. The reason for the limitation is the geneticists lack of will to accept the market price and terms. Additionally, Walsh's study found that only 1% reported delay of their project due to patents but no one was forced to quit their research. Furthermore, 22 out of 23 respondants in the study, stated that there were no fees for the patented technology. Only one respondant in the study said that he had to pay a licensing fee but it ranged to $100. This shows that patents have very insignificant effect on research on scientific literature. One respondant stated that it is very reasonable for the royalty paid for a therapeutic invention and royalty stacking does not pose any threat to the research and development process. Where license prices are too high for smaller businessness, firms provide discounts over research equipment. Incyte, for example, started single-gene searches for free in 2000 and #myriad offers discount rates, less than half the market price for academics for research on breast cancers.
Why is there a lack of belief in the patenting system?
While it is true that patent allows researchers to keep their findings private, blame cannot be put on patents. The studies on academic secrecy cannot be relied on because they are based on combined issues and therefore some suggest lessening the commercial direction to aid the flow of research. Another solution could be looking into the very competitive nature of the academic process and developing extra mechanisms to help the research subject to their commercial interests.