Licensing approaches, even for comparable technologies, can vary considerably from case to case and from institution to institution based on circumstances particular to each specific invention, business opportunity, licensee and university. In spite of this uniqueness, universities share certain core values that can and should be maintained to the fullest extent possible in all technology transfer agreements.In the summer of 2006, Stanford University's then Dean of Research Arthur Bienenstock convened a small meeting of research officers, licensing directors and a representative from the Association of American Medical Colleges to brainstorm about important societal, policy, legislative and other issues in university technology transfer. Representatives of the participating institutions, listed below, have tried to capture in this document certain shared perspectives that emerged from that meeting. Recognizing that each license is subject to unique influences that render 'cookie-cutter' solutions insufficient, it is our aim in releasing this paper to encourage our colleagues in the academic technology transfer profession to analyze each licensing opportunity individually in a manner that reflects the business needs and values of their institution, but at the same time, to the extent appropriate, also to bear in mind the concepts articulated herein when crafting agreements with industry. We recognize that many of these points are already being practiced. In the end, we hope to foster thoughtful approaches and encourage creative solutions to complex problems that may arise when universities license technologies in the public interest and for society's benefit.

Uploaded to CBS Research Portal in accordance with the self-archiving policy of Nature Research * This version of the article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the publisher's final version AKA Version of Record.

As universities and public research organizations increasingly partner with industry to fulfill their 'third mission' of innovation activities for economic and societal benefit, they have ethical obligations to ensure access to patented research tools, especially CRISPR-Cas9 technology.

No abstract

We review the agreements of 483 collaborative research projects between universities and industry. We find that only a subset, 52 of the agreements, allows for the use of trade secrets and lead time advantage, the preferred appropriation mechanisms by industry. We explore this gap by first reviewing the literature on appropriation mechanisms. We explain trade secrets and how lead time advantage is a confused and composite concept. In the empirical part, we use cross-tabulations to study the characteristics of the projects in the subset. We connect how appropriation mechanisms work, with academic secrecy and the theory of incomplete contracts. We conclude with propositions for managers and policymakers on the use of trade secrets in collaborative research.