Skip to main content


We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities:


I would have to disagree with the contention that the guidelines as drafted are anti-IP.
We have strongly advocated for permissive data licensing for the direct provision of research data to the research community. Beyond that, we haven’t made any representations regarding the use of patents to protect downstream inventions. The licenses suggested, especially CC0, do not restrict downstream data users from imposing different licenses (i.e. imposing copyright or other protections) on derived datasets created.
The recommendations, in my view, suggest the use of open and non-restrictive licenses for primary data principally as a means by which to maximize secondary use and ensure that interoperability is maintained (i.e. that datasets are not licensed incompatibly).
If this does not come out clearly in our current recommendations, we could further recommend that patenting and licensing be done in compliance with the OECD Guidelines for the Licensing of Genetic Inventions and other such policy instruments that counterbalance the interest in protecting inventions and the interest in protecting data subjects and ensuring the openness of genomic and biological data.
If there is a section of the guidelines that escaped my eye which is implicitly or explicitly anti-IP, I would be glad to have a look and see if there is cause for rectification.
I would be happy to write to Stefanie and Phil to glean their insights on this issue further as it sounds like they have a wealth of experience on this topic.
– Show quoted text -From: ***@***.*** on behalf of Bridget Walker via RDA COVID19 Coordination
Sent: June 4, 2020 4:21 AM
To: ***@***.***
Subject: [rdacovid19-coordination] Comments on 5th Release Received – Prof. Phil Robinson
Dear all
The comments below were received and forwarded to me from Stefanie Kethers at ARDC.
I am not an RDA member, but thought I’d send very brief top-down comments.
Sorry, but the whole 124 page document is too long for my available time. I did read the Exec Summary. This is a good effort overall. Most of the things listed here have already been happening for months now across the board. However I have no idea who might be holding back, and if this will prompt them, so this concept is good. Just might be late to the party I think, but a solid effort. There is still a long way to go to share the raw data tho.
Here is my initial viewpoint, assuming that the rest of the document is really good. From my perspective, this document, like so much current thinking, seems to ignore the whole drug discovery efforts. The massive work happening before anything first hits the patient. It does not seem to measure the progress of vaccine development either. Except for ‘omics’, the document seems to start only when the drug or vaccine hits the patient. There are huge numbers (1000s) of posts on bioRxiv and medRxiv in this target development space in 3 months. Unless I missed it in my brief skimming, the RDA document has a whole section on OMICS, but none on this massive part of the effort seems to be included (molecular and cell biology or pharmacology or medicinal chemistry are not omics). It seems unbalanced in this regard. Of what use is much (certainly not all) of the rest of the RDA guides if people don’t share which drugs or vaccines or molecular targets are looking promising, before hitting clinical trials? Not just after. Share the promising targets or approaches being revealed, as well as the dead-ends? As an example, a few papers posted on papers on bioRxiv and medRxiv have impacted on my thinking and drug development effort, sometimes just from the anecdotal discussion within some.
The RDA document also feels a little anti-IP. If so, I think could be counter-productive in part (I did not check this point in detail in the 124 pager, might have misunderstood). IP is a tool to further incentivise researchers and companies that actually manufacture and deliver products. Otherwise, valuable things may not get developed or even marketed at all. The counter view that IP can be an impediment is very real, but I think it is something to watch out for, not to discourage.
My apologies if some of my comments are off the mark. I am sending only in the spirit of constructivism and our common aim of public good.
Professor Phil Robinson, BSc (Hons), PhD
Head of Cell Signalling Unit, Children’s Medical Research Institute, The University of Sydney
The University of Sydney, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health
Co-Director of ProCan – The ACRF International Centre for the Proteome of Human Cancer
Co-Director of ACRF Centre for Kinomics
Locked Bag 23, Wentworthville NSW 2145 Australia
[Courier Address Only: 214 Hawkesbury Rd, Westmead NSW 2145]
T: (+612)-8865-2915 | M: +61 (0)412-833-175 | E: ***@***.***
Bridget Walker
Office Manager Research Data Alliance
Tel: +44-07307000352, +39-3405336956
email: ***@***.***
skype: bridgetwalker