6 ms·

> I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patent

> I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. See the mess around CRISPR patents for an excellent example of this.

Retric 7y ago
What’s crazy is universities don’t fund research. That’s a more central issue. They both directly profit from research and want to then own the results of that research, it’s a parasitic relationship with funding agencies.
- skosuri 7y ago
  They do. Most universities also rely on other sources to supplement research including donations, endowment spending, ip, and even tuition.
  - Retric 7y ago
    When a university’s are extracting more money from doing research on net then they invest in research that’s not funding. They do get rather creative with accounting, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. EX: A students tuition paid for by a research grant does not count as R&D spending by the University or even R&D.
egdod 7y ago
See the motivation to fund CRISPR research for a counterpoint.
- elkos 7y ago
  Was the bulk of CRISPR research mostly funded by private emtities or was it government funding in EU, US and others? Where the private emtities even going to undertake CRISPR research if there was no public funding? Would be interesting to see a study that showcases which was the major factor to research on that field is.
- refurb 7y ago
  You’re getting downvoted, but I agree. At least in biotech, patents drive a ton investment. How else do you get companies with billion dollar series A’s?
bhl 7y ago
The CRISPR debacle is a funny story because on one side you have a public institution and on the other side you have a private institution. However, both in reality are publicly funded whether that be through government grants or tax breaks on endowments. I think we should do a trade: an institution that in someway benefits from the public should get credit for the discovery but patent goes back to the public. Edit: I realize there’s a chance that whatever I just said, there’s a small European country that already has implemented this idea.
- silexia 7y ago
  Patents are a gigantic scam and the entire system should be scrapped. True free market would allow competition. This is just an artificial monopoly and it's needless and does not help competition.

Retric 7y ago

What’s crazy is universities don’t fund research. That’s a more central issue. They both directly profit from research and want to then own the results of that research, it’s a parasitic relationship with funding agencies.

skosuri 7y ago
They do. Most universities also rely on other sources to supplement research including donations, endowment spending, ip, and even tuition.
- Retric 7y ago
  When a university’s are extracting more money from doing research on net then they invest in research that’s not funding. They do get rather creative with accounting, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. EX: A students tuition paid for by a research grant does not count as R&D spending by the University or even R&D.

egdod 7y ago

See the motivation to fund CRISPR research for a counterpoint.

elkos 7y ago
Was the bulk of CRISPR research mostly funded by private emtities or was it government funding in EU, US and others? Where the private emtities even going to undertake CRISPR research if there was no public funding? Would be interesting to see a study that showcases which was the major factor to research on that field is.
refurb 7y ago
You’re getting downvoted, but I agree. At least in biotech, patents drive a ton investment. How else do you get companies with billion dollar series A’s?

bhl 7y ago

The CRISPR debacle is a funny story because on one side you have a public institution and on the other side you have a private institution. However, both in reality are publicly funded whether that be through government grants or tax breaks on endowments. I think we should do a trade: an institution that in someway benefits from the public should get credit for the discovery but patent goes back to the public. Edit: I realize there’s a chance that whatever I just said, there’s a small European country that already has implemented this idea.

silexia 7y ago
Patents are a gigantic scam and the entire system should be scrapped. True free market would allow competition. This is just an artificial monopoly and it's needless and does not help competition.