[Exclusive] Gene Editing Expert Prosecuted... Scientific Community Protests "Government System Gap"

Kim Jin-su IBS Director Accused of Breach of Duty
Received Support from Ministry of Science Foundation
Filed Patent Under Company Name, Not Seoul National University

Academia: "No Patent Revenue Sharing System
Government-Level Guidelines Needed"

Jinsu Kim, Director of the Genome Editing Research Division at the Institute for Basic Science (IBS)

[Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] The prosecution's indictment of Kim Jinsu, director of the Genome Editing Research Division at the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) and a world-renowned scholar known for his 'gene scissors' technology, has sparked backlash in the scientific community. There are concerns that the prosecution's excessive legal interpretation could dampen researchers' motivation.

According to authorities on the 7th, the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office announced that on the 2nd, it filed a non-custodial indictment against Kim and one other person on charges of breach of trust and fraud at the Daejeon District Court. The Daejeon District Court is expected to proceed with a criminal trial after witness examinations. Kim's legal representative, lawyer Kwon Ikhwan, stated, "We have not yet received the indictment, but we have been notified of the prosecution."

Kim is accused of obtaining a U.S. patent for the gene scissors technology 'CRISPR/Cas9' (CRISPR) in 2012-2013 under the name of ToolGen, a KONEX-listed company in which he is the largest shareholder (19.32% stake), rather than under Seoul National University, his affiliated institution at the time. Gene scissors is a technology that cuts specific genomes within living cells to alter genetic information, and Kim is regarded as a global expert in this field.

The issue centers on the fact that the 2.936 billion KRW used for the research was public funding from the National Research Foundation of Korea under the Ministry of Science and ICT, and whether Kim omitted reporting the patent to Seoul National University's Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation. Authorities argue that since Kim's employer in 2012-2013 was Seoul National University, the invention qualifies as a 'work invention' of the university, and failing to properly report the patent contribution is tantamount to misappropriation of research funds.

In response, lawyer Kwon said, "Kim has been continuously researching gene scissors since ToolGen's establishment in 1999, and the invention related to gene scissors is a result of a research contract with ToolGen, unrelated to the creative project funded by the National Research Foundation." He added, "We plan to fully clarify this through the trial process." According to the Invention Promotion Act, researchers must notify their employer in writing immediately upon completing a work invention.

Following the news of Kim's indictment, the scientific community expressed strong reactions. They argue that due to regulatory gaps, a world-class scientist is being treated as a criminal. There are also questions about whether it is appropriate to handle patents, which fall under private property rights, through criminal punishment rather than through agreements between researchers and universities.

One chemist said, "There are no concrete practices or systems in place for how to distribute profits from intangible assets like gene scissors patents, whose value is difficult to measure accurately. To conclude that university research funds were taken by individuals and private companies is an arbitrary judgment."

There are even calls for the government to intervene to support researchers' motivation before universities autonomously establish patent distribution guidelines. The relevant ministries?the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Ministry of Science and ICT, and the Ministry of SMEs and Startups?are urged to collaborate. However, the government has expressed reluctance. A Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy official said, "It is unrealistic to turn the controversial patent distribution issue into an inter-ministerial guideline, and government intervention could lead to further regulatory disputes."