Patenting the sun: Enclosing the scientific commons and transforming the university—ethical concerns

Abstract

University and corporate interests have grown increasingly close during the past quarter century, particularly, but not exclusively so, in the life science areas. Legislation passed in 1980 specifically encouraged universities to seek patents on their basic science discoveries and to develop and license such patents. Universities are now significant players in the life sciences area, although the rewards are confined to a very small number of institutions. Questions arise concerning the influence of such commercial activities on the character of the universities, on their roles as public institutions, on the integrity of science and scientists, and on the progressive enclosing of the basic science commons, to which universities have traditionally been major contributors. Drug Dev Res 63:139–149, 2004. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Medicinal chemistry education: what is needed and where is it going?

“…To the extent that university research is focused more on immediate rather than long-term problems, whether driven by political or financial considerations, the consequences may be short-term gain and long-term loss. A progressive thrust of medicinal chemistry in universities into more focused and directed areas may well yield a loss of long-term creativity and imagination, the very components of basic science for which universities have been both singularly successful and singularly well equipped [Krimsky, 2003;Triggle, 2005]. In this respect, it is worth comparing the comments of Derek Bok, former President of Harvard University, made over a two-decade period:…”

“…The contemporary challenge for the university is twofold. First, how to embrace the necessity for change and the breaking down of barriers between disciplines without sacrificing the core essentials of knowledge transmission and, second, how to resist the over-intrusion of market economics claiming that knowledge should be treated as a commodity capable of rapidly translatable economic benefit [Kirp, 2003;Triggle, 2005;Washburn, 2005].…”

Optimizing Outcome in the University-Industry Technology Transfer Projects

“…Among others following criticisms are worth of attention: profit seeking interests will affect research agendas and shift them towards more commercial than scientific areas of inquiry [21], involvement in commercial research will increase bias in investigations [53], reduce academic productivity [8], provide incentives for manipulating research outcomes [49]. Also reducing academic freedom [38], emergence of conflict of interest [60], reducing teaching quality [31] and reducing public trust in universities [60] are among other scholar criticisms on close university-industry organizational relations. Particular attention has been paid to sponsored research which is criticized because of risky governance structures of sponsored research agreements [61], possibility of manipulating research results and raising issue of secrecy by sponsors [18].…”

Supervisor–Student Relations: Examining the Spectrum of Conflicts of Interest in Bioscience Laboratories

“…Such interactions have received the blessing of universities and local and national governments (Bok 2003;Benner and Sandstrom 2000). But concerns have also been raised about the ethical challenges posed by university-industry relations, especially with regards to academic liberty and conflict of interest (COI) in the context of dual loyalties (e.g., researcher's duties towards their departments and industry partners) (Lewis et al 2001;Triggle 2004).…”