Relationships between Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences — An Industry Survey

Blumenthal, David; Causino, Nancyanne; Campbell, Eric G.; Louis, Karen Seashore

doi:10.1056/nejm199602083340606

Cited by 318 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Disadvantages may be caused either by slow decision-making on part of TTOs, which may be hazardous in patent racing research, or may be caused by the firm being called upon to inform these procedures in conflict with its concern for confidential aspects of its knowledge and expectations. 3) Finally, research is difficult to contract on, not least because a spe-5 These terms corresponds well the typical set-up for industry sponsorship of academic life-science research as identified in more comprehensive surveys, when we correct for their inclusion also of more short-term research issues (Blumenthal et al 1996) 6 Lagen om rätten till arbetstagares uppfinningar, LAU 1949:345. This specific exception to employer's ownership to their inventions is currently under consideration for reform See e.g.…”

Section: Lup and Its Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Valentin

Jensen

2006

J Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007University technology commercialization, Research collaboration, Biotechnology, I23, L65, O31, O34, O38,

show abstract

Section: Lup and Its Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Valentin

Jensen

2006

J Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On one hand, surveys of academic scientists have found that patenting skews scientists' research agendas toward commercial priorities, causes delay in the public dissemination of research findings, and crowds out effort devoted to producing public research (Blumenthal et al, 1996;Campbell et al 2002;Krimsky, 2003). In stark terms, this work has portrayed a tradeoff between patenting and the progress of academic science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research Output

Azoulay¹,

Ding

Stuart

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the influence of faculty patenting activity on the rate, quality, and content of public research outputs in a panel dataset spanning the careers of 3,862 academic life scientists. Using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to account for the dynamics of self-selection into patenting, we find that patenting has a positive effect on the rate of publication of journal articles, but no effect on the quality of these publications. Using several measures of the "patentability" of the content of research papers, we also find that patenters may be shifting their research focus to questions of commercial interest. We conclude that the often-voiced concern that patenting in academe has a nefarious effect on public research output is, at least in its simplest form, misplaced.

show abstract

“…The rationalization of resources force us to know what the outcomes of medical actions are. For this reason, measurement methods have been developed to quantify and thus improve the quality of our healthcare services [6][7][8], where the patients' subjective perception of wellbeing after completing the treatment is increasingly important [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients candidate for spine and other musculoskeletal surgery

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Despite the high prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases, in Spain there are few data about how these conditions affect the quality of life of individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of life (QOL) of patients candidate for orthopedic surgical treatment using an age-gender adjusted method of QOL scores. Materials and methods The SF-36 Health Survey was administered to 538 patients candidate for surgery between surgical treatment was classified in four groups (lumbar disease, cervical disease, knee arthroplasty, and hip arthroplasty). Associated morbidities were collected retrospectively for all cases using the Charlson co-morbidity index. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistical analyses were done to compare the four groups to each other, to the general population mean, and to the age and gender-adjusted population mean. Results 234 men and 304 women whose mean age was 58.78 years (19-89) were assessed. Patients candidate for some kind or lumbar surgery had the worst scores in all physical and mental scales as compared to the other disease groups. Patients candidate for knee arthroplasty, had the best quality of life scores in all scales, compared to the other disease groups. Medical conditions had no influence over the summary measures. Conclusion Presenting the results of SF-36 in standard deviations from the age-and gender-adjusted population mean (T values) leads to a better appreciation of the differences between the various diseases. Patients candidate for surgery of the lumbar spine had a worse QOL, while the QOL in patients candidate for knee arthroplasty was the least affected.

show abstract

Relationships between Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences — An Industry Survey

Cited by 318 publications

References 8 publications

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research Output

Evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients candidate for spine and other musculoskeletal surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About