Untitled

Fisher, Donald; Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet; House, Dawn

doi:10.1023/a:1017924027522

Cited by 70 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The panel proposed actions [37,38] that would radically alter the climate of university commercialisation. For example, 20 years after the fact, the panel sought to adopt the Bayh-Dole Act as a model -just as signs of concern about its impact were emerging in the USA.…”

Section: Current Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999

Atkinson-Grosjean¹

2002

IJTPM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article examines convergence and divergence in national science policy frameworks over the past two decades. A comparative framework contrasts policy development in Canada and the USA, using the commercialisation of university research as a paradigm case. General indicators of Canadian and US R&D activities are compared to those of other G7 nations, and outcomes of university commercialisation activities are compared between the two countries.Historically, each country approached the policy mandate from different directions. The USA adopted a regulatory framework, while Canada took a more laissez-faire approach. An examination of policy content and instruments for the period 1979-1999 indicates that the two models appear equally effective in inducing universities to commercialise. This being the case, the article addresses three key policy questions through an analysis of the interplay of interests, institutions, ideas, and international organisations. First, where did policies promoting the commercialisation of university research originate? Second, why did Canada and the USA adopt different instruments to achieve similar policy goals? Third, after 20 years on a parallel path why is Canada now open to the US model?In terms of the first question, it appears that convergence on a policy of commercialising university research was strongly influenced by the international policy discourse. As to the second question, the paper points to the institutional differences between the two countries as a source of divergence. Regarding the third question, the paper suggests that the potential adoption of the US model is evidence that Canadian 'competitiveness coalitions' have now caught up with their US counterparts.

show abstract

Section: Current Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999

Atkinson-Grosjean¹

2002

IJTPM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the legislated objectives of CIHR is 'facilitating the commercialization of health research in Canada and promoting economic development through health research in Canada' [14]. The Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence Program, developed in 1989 to mobilize Canada's best research teams, has been developed around the idea of altering the academic culture and managing scientific research to make it more commercial [15]. In its recent 20th anniversary report, the Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence stated that it would focus in the coming years on increasing industrial investment in research and development partnership and accelerating the commercialization of technologies, products and services [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEfforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. Over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work. Concurrently, they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open science model) in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and to maximize the impact of their research.DiscussionWe present selected guidelines from three countries (Canada, United States, and United Kingdom) situated at the forefront of genomics to illustrate this potential policy conflict. Examining the innovation ecosystem and the messages conveyed by the different policies surveyed, we further investigate the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies.SummaryCommercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we wish to point out the need to gather additional evidence on the coexistence of open science and commercialization policies and on its impact, both positive and negative, on genomics academic research.

show abstract

“…62 Though relationships between universities and industry are not new, many observers believe that the last few decades have brought the commercial revolution of science to a new level. 63,64 Analysts have attributed this revolution to different causes: 1) economic globalisation; 65 2) reduction in government funding; 66 3) new government priorities 67 that see universities as central to innovation and to the knowledge-based economy; 68 4) development of agreements encouraging university-industry relationships, 69 financing of Industries-Liaison Offices 70 and laws such as the BayhDole Act (1980) in the United Sates 71 that promote technological transfer from publicfinanced research to the private sector; 72 5) universities' own financial interests. 73 The four models of science and university transformation presented above are interesting ways of describing the transformations occurring in institutions and science in a global perspective.…”

Section: Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and that it affected their scientific activity in terms of productivity and exchanges. These cases are sometimes considered illustrations of what is called a "culture conflict" 88 arising between academic research and private sector values. Different values are said to be specific academic ideals -openness, objectivity, academic freedom, scepticism, preservation and dissemination of knowledge, etc.…”

Section: Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

"Commercial revolution" of science: the complex reality and experience of genetic and genomic scientists

Ganache¹

2006

Life Sci Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to advocates and authors from different disciplines interested in biomedicine, biomedical research in genetics and genomics has the potential to transform medicine, the economy, society, and humanity as a whole. Believing in this potential, biomedical scientists produce knowledge and participate in the decisions concerning the orientation of this research and its applications. Through a qualitative analysis of scientists' practice-related discourse, we identified three main sources of complexity in their involvement in the "commercial revolution" of science. First, scientists insist on the existence of different types of university-industry relationships. Second, they urge that the multiple realities of genetic and genomic research be acknowledged. Third, they present themselves as individuals in a diverse scientific community, each with a unique position in this commercial revolution. This paper draws attention to these complexities because they must be considered when engaging in a study of genetics and genomics advances from a research ethics perspective.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 70 publications

References 0 publications

Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999

Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999

Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?

"Commercial revolution" of science: the complex reality and experience of genetic and genomic scientists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About