Access and openness in biotechnology research collaborations between universities and industry

Abstract

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.

Methods in molecular biology and genetics: looking to the future

“…Further collaborations between scientists from academia and industry (in addition to researchers from government agencies) [18] would help to facilitate the development of novel methods, and aid in promoting their implementation around the world. For many countries, the main barrier to the broad use of molecular methods is the high cost of equipment and reagents [19].…”

The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science

“…It is thus unsurprising that the literature suggests that the move to university-owned and controlled patents, accelerated, in part, through the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act ( Mowery et al., 2001 ), did not demonstrably achieve either of the two overarching goals of the practice: to increase the level of innovation in the economy and to increase revenue gains for universities ( Eisenberg and Cook-Deegan, 2018 ; Ouellette and Tutt, 2020 ; Corredoira et al., 2019 ). There are several reasons put forward to explain why a university patenting strategy has not had the desired results, including decreased downstream development and upstream duplication ( Egelie et al., 2019 ), increased difficulty and delays in establishing contractual relationships with university technology transfer offices ( Dahlborg et al., 2017 ; Hertzfeld et al., 2006 ; Kira R. Fabrizio, 2006 ), lack of university expertise and market knowledge ( Swamidass and Vulasa, 2009 ), delayed dissemination and uptake of results ( Williams, 2013 ; Fabrizio, 2009 ; Kira, 2006 ; West, 2006 ), perverse university incentive structures ( Ouellette and Tutt, 2020 ; Eisenberg and Cook-Deegan, 2018 ) and the use of university patents to sue firms that have developed products without the aid of university patents ( Eisenberg and Cook-Deegan, 2018 , 82; Rooksby, 2011 ).…”

“…Universities, colleges and research institutes have demonstrated no particular skill at managing intellectual property ( Egelie et al., 2019 ). Thus, the lack of patents within OSPs – in which universities and research institutes are important players – comes at little cost.…”

“…Sharing knowledge, materials, and tools increases quality, speeds validation and reduces duplication of innovation ( David, 2003 , 22; Egelie et al., 2019 ; Kira R. Fabrizio, 2006 ). In contrast, university patenting leads to delays due to protracted and difficult negotiations: “[T]he transfer of technology through the vehicle of licensing intellectual property is, in the case of process technologies, far more subject to tensions and deficiencies arising from the absence of complete alignment in the interest of the involved individuals and organizations” ( David, 2003 , 26).…”

The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach

“…As a complement to the focus on later stages of the scientific research process in OS, OI emphasises processes and logics of exchange in the early and intermediary steps of knowledge production. Of late, OI-influenced researchers have specifically explored these dynamics in the context of science (Beck et al 2020;Franzoni and Sauermann 2014;Guinan, Boudreau, and Lakhani 2013;Lifshitz-Assaf 2018), extending the linkages between OI and the science context beyond different forms of technology transfer (Chesbrough 2020;Egelie et al 2019;Perkmann et al 2013). However, despite potential synergies between the OS and OI approaches, our understanding of open and collaborative practices in the science context and their related antecedents, consequences, and contingencies remains limited and fragmented.…”