There&#x27;s a big difference between exclusive licensing and non-exclusive licensing. New drugs (like penicillin) tend to be exclusively licensed because of the costs involved in regulatory approval, and that can slow down technology diffusion - the wrong licensee can sink the technology.<p>But enabling technologies (like CRSPR) get licensed non-exclusively, particularly when the patent holder is an academic institution.  If the patents around CRSPR are licensed non-exclusively, at reasonably prices, and with appropriate treatment for academic researchers, these patents aren&#x27;t going to slow science down.<p>A good example is the original polymerase chain reaction patents, which were held by Cetus. Despite lots of legal arguments, PCR was always widely available.<p>Here&#x27;s a nice analysis of the PCR patent situation and its effects on technology diffusion:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC1523369&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC1523369&#x2F;</a>