Critics of the patent system have argued that rather than promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, the patent system as it exists in the United States and perhaps elsewhere may actually inhibit such progress. Much of the criticism has been focused on patenting of research tools. The author attempts to evaluate the extent of this effect, and to suggest some possible modifications to the patent system to address its shortcomings. She considers the advantages attributed to the patenting system-providing incentives for finance and development and spurring creativity-with the disadvantages perceived by the academic community, including impediments to the communication of research findings and other transaction costs. Also examined are possible options for mitigating these problems, including legislative restrictions of certain subject matter from patentability, or strengthening the criteria used in review of patent applications, especially non-obviousness and utility. In addition, the author discusses potential "post-patent solutions," such as legislative or other restrictions on licensing.