3 ms·

Scientific institutions in the United States have largely been captured by the investment-corporate sector. Basic R&D results produced with federal funds end u

Scientific institutions in the United States have largely been captured by the investment-corporate sector. Basic R&D results produced with federal funds end up in the hands of corporate entities due to the exclusive licensing (Bayh-Dole) rules implemented in the 1980s, and this also means these corporate interests have reduced their own internal basic R&D budgets relative to past eras, instead relying on the federal funding system and the university research departments for this task. As a result, every tech department in the US university system is packed full of scheming federally-funded startup types, whose goal is to get a patent, transfer that patent to a small company which is then bought up by a corporate major, and then the professor gets a small percentage of the royalties. Federally-funded entrepreneurs of this kind and their facilitators are the people who run most university administrations these days. This merger of the academic and corporate worlds is the fundamental reason for the phenomena described in this report. The solution is pretty simple: eliminate exclusive licensing of university patents, such that anyone can use them for product development for a small flat fee. This would have the beneficient effect of encouraging corporations to move funds back into private research labs, as that's the only way they could ensure an exclusive patent period.

ramesh31 4y ago
> This would have the beneficient effect of encouraging corporations to move funds back into private research labs, as that's the only way they could ensure an exclusive patent period. With the second order effect of discouraging would be "schemers" from being entrepreneurial and innovative in the first place. It's not such a simple solution.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > entrepreneurial and innovative These are antonyms in this instance. Corrupt advisors and administrators trying to line their own pockets aren't how you foster creativity.
dinvlad 4y ago
It is difficult to de-couple these two things, because companies is where science translates to the real world. We need more direct funding from the rich governments for the kinds of research described in the article, which would address the associated problems “on paper”, while still allowing translation of it in startups etc and ultimately benefitting the general public. So the problem is not so much that companies sponsor some (!) research, but that the governments simply don’t invest nearly as much into public R&D as they need or could (while preferring to pour money into the military etc.). As a result, academics have no choice but follow other funding sources to survive in the already hyper-competitive scientific world. Hence, we should not put the blame on them, but rather on the public funding sources.
Balgair 4y ago
Having worked and studied in a few universities, man, this would be awesome if it were true to my experience. Trying to get the patent attorneys, the tech transfer office, or the budget office to do literally anything is like trying to walk on the ceiling. It would take months just to get a consult with the tech transfer office to even see if they could be bothered to talk to the lawyers. For real, at one school the budget office for patents and the like for the whole university was staffed by one part-time woman very close to retirement who could barely rubber stamp anything with what little time she had in a day. As for grants, man, again, it's a dog fight out there to even get anything to begin with. Unless your PI has fair/good connections in the grant funding agencies, you're gonna have a rough time. I've been in a few labs that have tried the corporate funding route and it's never really worked out. They all want a result, not a real study that can fail, and they want it in 3 months, and they want it for a tenth of the cost it would actually take, eve with very poorly paid grad students. Industry grants do happen, but man, they almost never make anything 'real' happen, it's mostly just a headache.
- gumby 4y ago
  For the top of the R1 list, GP's post is roughly true, though not as densely involved (only a few faculty or grad students manage it). The licensing offices of those institutions are very painful to deal with. However in my (not enormous) experience the licensing offices of the schools below that tier are even more difficult to work with. I imagine it's a combination of not doing a lot of deals and over-imagining the value of the IP.
otikik 4y ago
Remove patents from the equation altogether.

ramesh31 4y ago

> This would have the beneficient effect of encouraging corporations to move funds back into private research labs, as that's the only way they could ensure an exclusive patent period. With the second order effect of discouraging would be "schemers" from being entrepreneurial and innovative in the first place. It's not such a simple solution.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> entrepreneurial and innovative These are antonyms in this instance. Corrupt advisors and administrators trying to line their own pockets aren't how you foster creativity.

dinvlad 4y ago

It is difficult to de-couple these two things, because companies is where science translates to the real world. We need more direct funding from the rich governments for the kinds of research described in the article, which would address the associated problems “on paper”, while still allowing translation of it in startups etc and ultimately benefitting the general public. So the problem is not so much that companies sponsor some (!) research, but that the governments simply don’t invest nearly as much into public R&D as they need or could (while preferring to pour money into the military etc.). As a result, academics have no choice but follow other funding sources to survive in the already hyper-competitive scientific world. Hence, we should not put the blame on them, but rather on the public funding sources.

Balgair 4y ago

Having worked and studied in a few universities, man, this would be awesome if it were true to my experience. Trying to get the patent attorneys, the tech transfer office, or the budget office to do literally anything is like trying to walk on the ceiling. It would take months just to get a consult with the tech transfer office to even see if they could be bothered to talk to the lawyers. For real, at one school the budget office for patents and the like for the whole university was staffed by one part-time woman very close to retirement who could barely rubber stamp anything with what little time she had in a day. As for grants, man, again, it's a dog fight out there to even get anything to begin with. Unless your PI has fair/good connections in the grant funding agencies, you're gonna have a rough time. I've been in a few labs that have tried the corporate funding route and it's never really worked out. They all want a result, not a real study that can fail, and they want it in 3 months, and they want it for a tenth of the cost it would actually take, eve with very poorly paid grad students. Industry grants do happen, but man, they almost never make anything 'real' happen, it's mostly just a headache.

gumby 4y ago
For the top of the R1 list, GP's post is roughly true, though not as densely involved (only a few faculty or grad students manage it). The licensing offices of those institutions are very painful to deal with. However in my (not enormous) experience the licensing offices of the schools below that tier are even more difficult to work with. I imagine it's a combination of not doing a lot of deals and over-imagining the value of the IP.

otikik 4y ago

Remove patents from the equation altogether.