7 ms·

Grants from the NSF, etc. should only be granted on the condition that the research produced enters the public domain. Taxpayer dollars should not go towards pr

Grants from the NSF, etc. should only be granted on the condition that the research produced enters the public domain. Taxpayer dollars should not go towards producing research the public cannot benefit from without paying to license a patent or access a $100 journal article.

bushbaba 5y ago
Not sure I 100% agree. Commercializing creates jobs, tax income, and encourages the best and brightest to focus on the issue. Many researchers in academia are still monetary driven. Those journals “peer review” and provide a quality bar for the content. The government didn’t cover the journal cost but instead covered the research cost. Your asking for the government to additionally have its own scientific publication journal that is free. Not a bad idea, but also maybe not the best of ideas.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > Commercializing creates jobs, tax income, and encourages the best and brightest to focus on the issue. There's nothing preventing the fruits of research from being commercialised just because that research has been made public domain. > Your asking for the government to additionally have its own scientific publication journal that is free. Not a bad idea, but also maybe not the best of ideas. There is already a similar requirement for NIH grants. Research produced with NIH grants has to be made available on PubMed Central.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    Pubmed is accessible to the world. Not just American entities. Wouldn’t it benefit America to ensure funded research is used to benefit the American interest. Not saying it’s right but the system I believe is currently WAI.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      Well, that does it, I suppose. We can't require that public money goes to actually benefiting the public because God forbid people outside of America might also benefit from it.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Research is one of the most international activities. Trying to restrict it to only be open to your nation will quickly land you in a spot where you quickly fall behind.
- new299 5y ago
  I've worked almost exclusively with university spinouts. I would say in almost all cases the foundational approach/IP has not been taken forward. New IP was developed, which was more suitable for building a commercial product. I'd actually be interested in any examples where university IP has successfully been taken forward (particularly in Biotech). Mostly the universities provide effectively training, and a background of scientific techniques which can help build companies... but specific IP... not so much.
  - unishark 5y ago
    Universities also add prestige and provide protection for the IP. It may be a good deal or not depending on the price.
- chalst 5y ago
  > Many researchers in academia are still monetary driven. "Money driven" suggests that is the primary motivation, although I'm not sure that is what you meant: I think that's fairly rare in academia. Money is a consideration for most academics, but prestige generally is a much more important driver.
m-ee 5y ago
That would eliminate all of SBIR funding, but maybe that’s what you want? I worked for a start up that was spun out thanks to an exclusive license to the technology the founder developed at a university lab, and then supported with SBIR money. I agree with the article that these types of arrangements are on the whole a good thing. The company failed but without that license we wouldn’t have had a chance, large companies would have no reason to partner with us if they could have the tech for free, or we might have been sued into submission by some of the more trolly companies in the space.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  What does the taxpayer get back? Do you pay back the money? Does the government get an ownership stake? And if it didn't exist, does private equity not exist?
  - _delirium 5y ago
    The goal of SBIR is to provide seed funding for American small businesses engaged in innovation, and is one of the more popular parts of federal science funding, across parties. People like small businesses. They don't really like private equity. Making the results of U.S.-funded research exploitable without license by foreign entities is also very unpopular. That is one reason the U.S. does not have a public domain mandate of the kind you propose. I would personally be open to your suggestion that the government should take an ownership percentage in return for its funding. I don't think this has been seriously proposed, but it has interesting implications.
    - biztos 5y ago
      > the government should take an ownership percentage in return for its funding But wouldn't that create a big conflict of interest? WidgetCorp is 10% owned by the Feds, InterWidget is not. Who gets the contract for those $6M widgets in the new fighter jet?
      - Swenrekcah 5y ago
lvs 5y ago
Look up the Bayh-Dole Act.
asdff 5y ago
NIH funded research goes public open access on pubmed after 1 year
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Yes, I know, and this should be extended to any research that receives government funding.
teekert 5y ago
Public money, public code.
cma 5y ago
This could suffer tragedy of the commons due to other nations. If all is free why would another smaller country bother to invest in research? I still think their are better solutions to be found, but that problem would need to be addressed.
danielfoster 5y ago
There's a lot to say in favor of this and I generally agree. It's frustrating to see taxpayer money used in this way. If the government were to say, "taypayer money = open access," it would need to factor in the many situations where taxpayer funding is combined with private investment. This includes the time and professional reputation of the project owners, who may be risking a decade or more of their career on an innovative idea that might not pan out. This is just my perspective from researching SBIR grants, which are generally $100,000 - $250,000. This is enough to fund a component of a project or get started, but this deceiving large amount really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. It would be interesting to isolate projects where taxpayer dollars constitute a majority of the funding and go from there.

bushbaba 5y ago

Not sure I 100% agree. Commercializing creates jobs, tax income, and encourages the best and brightest to focus on the issue. Many researchers in academia are still monetary driven. Those journals “peer review” and provide a quality bar for the content. The government didn’t cover the journal cost but instead covered the research cost. Your asking for the government to additionally have its own scientific publication journal that is free. Not a bad idea, but also maybe not the best of ideas.

mannerheim 5y ago
> Commercializing creates jobs, tax income, and encourages the best and brightest to focus on the issue. There's nothing preventing the fruits of research from being commercialised just because that research has been made public domain. > Your asking for the government to additionally have its own scientific publication journal that is free. Not a bad idea, but also maybe not the best of ideas. There is already a similar requirement for NIH grants. Research produced with NIH grants has to be made available on PubMed Central.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Pubmed is accessible to the world. Not just American entities. Wouldn’t it benefit America to ensure funded research is used to benefit the American interest. Not saying it’s right but the system I believe is currently WAI.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    Well, that does it, I suppose. We can't require that public money goes to actually benefiting the public because God forbid people outside of America might also benefit from it.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Research is one of the most international activities. Trying to restrict it to only be open to your nation will quickly land you in a spot where you quickly fall behind.
new299 5y ago
I've worked almost exclusively with university spinouts. I would say in almost all cases the foundational approach/IP has not been taken forward. New IP was developed, which was more suitable for building a commercial product. I'd actually be interested in any examples where university IP has successfully been taken forward (particularly in Biotech). Mostly the universities provide effectively training, and a background of scientific techniques which can help build companies... but specific IP... not so much.
- unishark 5y ago
  Universities also add prestige and provide protection for the IP. It may be a good deal or not depending on the price.
chalst 5y ago
> Many researchers in academia are still monetary driven. "Money driven" suggests that is the primary motivation, although I'm not sure that is what you meant: I think that's fairly rare in academia. Money is a consideration for most academics, but prestige generally is a much more important driver.

m-ee 5y ago

That would eliminate all of SBIR funding, but maybe that’s what you want? I worked for a start up that was spun out thanks to an exclusive license to the technology the founder developed at a university lab, and then supported with SBIR money. I agree with the article that these types of arrangements are on the whole a good thing. The company failed but without that license we wouldn’t have had a chance, large companies would have no reason to partner with us if they could have the tech for free, or we might have been sued into submission by some of the more trolly companies in the space.

mannerheim 5y ago
What does the taxpayer get back? Do you pay back the money? Does the government get an ownership stake? And if it didn't exist, does private equity not exist?
- _delirium 5y ago
  The goal of SBIR is to provide seed funding for American small businesses engaged in innovation, and is one of the more popular parts of federal science funding, across parties. People like small businesses. They don't really like private equity. Making the results of U.S.-funded research exploitable without license by foreign entities is also very unpopular. That is one reason the U.S. does not have a public domain mandate of the kind you propose. I would personally be open to your suggestion that the government should take an ownership percentage in return for its funding. I don't think this has been seriously proposed, but it has interesting implications.
  - biztos 5y ago
    > the government should take an ownership percentage in return for its funding But wouldn't that create a big conflict of interest? WidgetCorp is 10% owned by the Feds, InterWidget is not. Who gets the contract for those $6M widgets in the new fighter jet?
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago

lvs 5y ago

Look up the Bayh-Dole Act.

asdff 5y ago

NIH funded research goes public open access on pubmed after 1 year

mannerheim 5y ago
Yes, I know, and this should be extended to any research that receives government funding.

teekert 5y ago

Public money, public code.

cma 5y ago

This could suffer tragedy of the commons due to other nations. If all is free why would another smaller country bother to invest in research? I still think their are better solutions to be found, but that problem would need to be addressed.

danielfoster 5y ago

There's a lot to say in favor of this and I generally agree. It's frustrating to see taxpayer money used in this way. If the government were to say, "taypayer money = open access," it would need to factor in the many situations where taxpayer funding is combined with private investment. This includes the time and professional reputation of the project owners, who may be risking a decade or more of their career on an innovative idea that might not pan out. This is just my perspective from researching SBIR grants, which are generally $100,000 - $250,000. This is enough to fund a component of a project or get started, but this deceiving large amount really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. It would be interesting to isolate projects where taxpayer dollars constitute a majority of the funding and go from there.