Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Submission to the Royal Society: Science as a Public Enterprise: Opening up Scientic Information Authors: Professor Joshua S. Gans1 and Professor Fiona Murray2 Date: 29th July, 2011
Skoll Chair of Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship and Professor of Strategic Management, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Email: joshua.gans@rotman.toronto.ca
1
Associate Professor of Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Strategic Management, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Email: fmurray@mit.edu
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto 105 St George St, Toronto ON M5S 3E6
W www.joshuagans.com
Submission
Table of Contents
Introduction
Alternative modes of disclosure
An open access requirement
The role of intellectual property protection
Communication and new media
1 1 2 3 4
Submission
Introduction
This submission has a narrow purpose: to highlight relevant research in economics and strategic management designed to understand the impact of various institutions and policies (most notably, policies around intellectual property protection) on the incentives of scientists and their funders to disclose scientic knowledge. It is important to recognise that many scientists, science-policy makers and observers are aware that the generation and application of knowledge is the well-spring of economic growth. Nonetheless, there is less recognition that the key mechanism generating the power of science to drive growth is the disclosure and sharing of the generated knowledge stock. If knowledge is kept secret or if it is locked down with long-lived intellectual property protection or patent thickets, the process of growth is disrupted with large cumulative effects on welfare. In light of this insight, The Royal Societys deliberations should, in our opinion, consider how to change the default behaviors and conditions associated with research funding in order to ensure that disclosure and open access occurs rapidly and effectively.
Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteurs Quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution; and Murray, F., & Stern, S. 2007. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free ow of scientic knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4), 648-687
4
Submission
by researchers in the University of California system linked all these patents to academic publications.5 This is not to say that patents have come to substitute for publications. A study of researchers at MIT over a 25 year period suggests a ratio of publications to patents of about 10:1, however that knowledge that is patented is linked to paired publications.6 Moreover, the prevalence of such patenting activity is linked to researchers who are the most productive in terms of their research publication outputs.7 Nonetheless, the decision to le for patents seems to remain a choice for researchers with few if any restrictions placed on them by public funders (although private funders are more explicit in their requirements for invention disclosure).
Thompson, Neil, D. Mowery, A. Ziedonis, 2011. The Impact of Patents, Licensing and Materials Transfer Agreements (MTA) On the Flow of Knowledge. Working Paper. Oregon.
6
Bikard M and F Murray 2011. "How Creative is Collaboration? Examining the Organization of Knowledge Work," Working Paper, MIT.
Azoulay, P., Ding, W. & Stuart, T. 2009. The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality and Direction of (Public) Research Output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 75: 637-676
8
These effects are documented in Joshua S Gans and Fiona Murray, "Funding Scientic Knowledge: Selection, Disclosure and the PublicPrivate Portfolio," Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, J. Lerner and S. Stern (eds), NBER, 2011 (forthcoming).
Submission
of results. One reason could be that the scientist has some expectation that they will earn commercial prots from their research -- even publicly funded research -- and would not want to jeopardise those commercial returns with full disclosure of research outcomes and data (particularly for research not fully covered by patents). Another reason is that the scientist would like to develop further results in the future and has no incentive to release results quickly for example, some of the debate around disclosure of results from the Human Genome Project rested on the speed of disclosure of gene sequences with the Bermuda Rules shifting disclosure from the discretion of the researcher and typically 1-2 years to immediate disclosure. In other areas, more rapid and fuller data disclosure could be forced by a requirement for disclosure and open access but this also suggests that such disclosure might have adverse consequences. For instance, it may reduce incentives for the scientist to build on their own research. It also suggests that rather than requiring disclosure, we need to investigate why it is that scientists do not seem to be rewarded (with kudos) for the earlier release of results.
These are discussed in Joshua S Gans, Fiona Murray and Scott Stern, Contracting Over the Disclosure of Scientic Knowledge: Intellec-
Submission