Ethical conflicts in commercialization of university research in the post-bayh-dole era

Ethics and Behavior

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 324-351

  Kumar, Malhar N ^a  

^a Hosmat   (India)

Author keywords

Academic patenting; Intellectual property rights; Responsible commercialization of research; University patents

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957713528     PISSN: 10508422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2010.491759     Document Type: Article

References (162)

1. Abramson, H. N., Cão, J. E., Reid, P. R., & Schmoch, U. (1997). Technology transfer systems in the United States and Germany: Lessons and perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
2. Adelman, D. E., & DeAngelis, K. L. (2006). Patent metrics: The mismeasure of innovation in the biotech patent debate. Texas Law Review, 85, 1679-1741.
3. Arrow, K. (1962). Economics of welfare and the allocation of resources for invention in National Bureau of Economic Research, The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Ashcraft, R. (1987). Locke's two treatises of government. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
5. Association of University Technology Managers. (2007). U.S. licensing activity survey: FY2006 survey summary, Data appendix. Retrieved from http://www.autm.net/events/file/AUTM_06_US%20LSS_FNL.pdf
6. Baldini, N. (2006). The entrepreneurial university: A debate. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097325
7. Bar-Shalom, A., & Cook-Deegan, R. (2002). Patents and innovation in cancer chemotherapies: Lessons from CellPro. Millbank Quarterly, 80, 637.
8. BayhDole25, Inc. (2006, April 17). Bayh-Dole at 25: A survey of the origins, effects, and prospects of the Bayh-Dole Act [White paper]. New York: Author. Retrieved from http://bayhdole25.org/node/20
9. Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of co-operative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30, 179-199.
10. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y.,& Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 454-465.
11. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). With holding of research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1224-1228.
12. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., et al. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and other life sciences. Academic Medicine, 81, 137-145.
13. Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E. G., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences. An industry survey. The New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 368-373.
14. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the market place: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. Brewster, A. Z., Chapman, A. R., & Hansen, S. A. (2005). Facilitating humanitarian access to pharmaceutical and agricultural innovation. Innovation Strategy Today, 1, 203-216. Retrieved from http://www.biodevelopments.org/innovation/ist1hires.pdf
16. Breznitz, S. M. (2007, July). What is wrong with technology transfer model adaptation? Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1127236
17. Buchbinder, H. (1993). The market-oriented university and the changing role of knowledge. Higher Education, 26, 331-347.
18. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier (A report to the president by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm
19. Campbell, E. G., & Blumenthal, D. (1999). Perils of university-industry collaboration. Issues in Science and Technology, 16(1), 15.
20. Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 473-481.
21. Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29, 303-312.
22. Canavan Foundation. (2003, September 29). Joint press release. New York: Author. Retrieved from http://www.canavanfoundation.org/news_detail.php?id=6
23. Cho, M. K., Shohara, R., Schissel, A., & Rennie, D. (2000). Policies on faculty conflicts of interests at U.S. universities. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 2237-2238.
24. Chow, M., Ilangasekare, S., Weaver, M., Leopold, D., & Merz, J. (2003). Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 5, 3-8.
25. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
26. Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 309-327.
27. Critchley, C. R., & Nicol, D. (2009). Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for scientific research: Is it about the funding source or the organization conducting research? Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10:1177/0963662509346910
28. Davidoff, F., DeAngelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Hoey, J., Hjgaard, L., Horton, R., et al. (2001). Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 825-827.
29. Deem, R. (2001). Globalization, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37, 7-20.
30. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Fed. Reg. 64, 72090-72096. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health
31. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
32. Drazen, J. M. (2002). Institutions, contracts and academic freedom. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1362-1363.
33. Dreyfuss, R. (2004). Protecting the public domain of science: Has the time for experimental use defense arrived? Arizona Law Review, 458, 457-472.
34. Eisenberg, R. S. (1996). Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review, 82, 1663-1727.
35. Eisenberg, R. S. (2006). Patents and data sharing in public science. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 1013-1031.
36. Embrex, Inc v. Service Engineering Corp., 216 F. 3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
37. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2002). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and Mode-2 to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
38. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Branca, R., & Terra, C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313-330.
39. Fabrizio, K. R. (2006). Opening the dam or building channels: University patenting and the use of public science in industrial innovation. Retrieved from http://gbspapers.library.emory.edu/archive/00000255/01/GBS-OM-2006-001.pdf
40. Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
41. Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26-47.
42. Fisher, W. W. (2001). Theories of intellectual property. In New essays in the legal and political theory of property. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html
43. Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science and Technology, 15(4), 67-73.
44. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
45. Glenna, L. L., Lacy, W. B., Welsh, R., & Biscotti, D. (2007). University administrators, agricultural biotechnology and academic capitalism: Defining the public good to promote university-industry relationships. The Sociological Quarterly, 48, 141-164.
46. Gluck, M., Blumenthal, D., & Stoto, M. A. (1987). University-industry relationships in the life sciences: Implications for students and post doctoral fellows. Research Policy, 16, 327-336.
47. Greenberg, D. (2001). Science, money and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Greenberg et al. v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264F. Supp.2d 1064 (S.D Fla. 2003).
49. Guena, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790-807.
50. Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 249-258.
51. Hansen, S., Brewster, A., Asher, J., & Kisiewlewski, M. (2006). The effects of patenting in the AAAS scientific community. Washington, DC: American Academy for Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://sippi.aaas.org/survey/AAAS_IP_Survey_Reports.pdf
52. Hansen, T. B. (2006). Academic and social responsibility of scientists. Journal on Science and World Affairs, 2, 71-92.
53. Heller, M.A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biological research. Science, 280, 5364.
54. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajitenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-88. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119-132.
55. Hettinger, E. C. (1989). Justifying intellectual property. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18, 1-38.
56. Holden, C. (2007). U.S. patent office casts doubts on Wisconsin stem cell patents. Science, 316, 812.
57. Horstmann, E., McCabe, M. S., Grochow, L., Yamamoto, S., Rubinstein, L., Budd, T., et al. (2005). Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 895-904.
58. Innovation's golden goose. (2002, December 12). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1476653
59. Is the university-industrial complex out of control? (2001). Nature, 409, 119.
60. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. American Economic Review, 9(1), 240-259.
61. Johnston, J., & Wasunna, A. (2007). Patents, biomedical research and treatments: Examining concerns, canvassing solutions, Special report. The Hastings Center Report, 37(1), 1-36.
62. Jones, B-W. (2005). Knowledge commons or economic engine-What's a university for? Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 249-250.
63. Kaiser, J. (2005). Conflict of interest policy: NIH rules make some pack, others plead. Science, 307, 1703.
64. Kenney, M. (1987). The ethical dilemmas of university-industry collaborations. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 127-135.
65. Kenney, M., & Florida, R. (1994). The organization and geography of Japanese R&D: Results from a survey of Japanese electronics and biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 23, 305-323.
66. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407-1422.
67. Kesan, J. P. (2009). Transferring innovation. Fordham Law Review, 77, 2169. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1376444
68. Kitch, E. W. (1977). The nature and function of the patent system. Journal of Law & Economics, 20, 265-290.
69. Kolehmainen, S. M. (2000). The dangerous promise of gene therapy. Gene Watch, 13(1), 6-9.
70. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy, 28, 1-22.
71. Landes, W., & Posner, R. (1989). An economic analysis of copyright law. Journal of Legal Studies, 18, 325.
72. Lebovitz, R. M. (2007). The duty to disclose patent rights. North Western Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v6/n1/2
73. Lee, J. J., & Rhoads, R. A. (2004). Faculty entrepreneurialism and the challenge to undergraduate education at research universities. Research in Higher Education, 45, 739.
74. Lee, N. (2001). UCSF, Immune Response drop countersuits. San Diego Business Journal, 39, 14.
75. Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843-863.
76. Lei, Z., Juneja, R., & Wright, B.D. (2009). Patents versus patenting: Implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 36-40.
77. Leslie, D. W. (2002). Resolving the dispute: Teaching is academe's core value. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 49-73.
78. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (in press). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect. Scientometrics. http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/BayhDole/index.htm
79. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 641-655.
80. Litan, R. E., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). "The university as innovator": Bumps in the road. Issues in Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.issues.org/23.4/litan.html
81. Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 233-245.
82. Macer, D. R. J. (1999). Bioethics in and from Asia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 293-295.
83. Madey v. Duke University, 307 F. 3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Retrieved from http://www.ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/307.F3d.1531.01_1567.html
84. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 353-364.
85. Marshall, E. (2000). Patent suit pits post doc against former mentor. Science, 287, 2399-2401.
86. Marshall, E. (2002). DuPont ups ante on the use of Harvard's oncomouse. Science, 296, 1212.
87. Mayer, S. (2006). Declaration of patent applications as financial interests:Asurvey of practice among authors of papers on molecular biology in Nature. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 658-661.
88. McGarey, B. M., & Levey, A. C. (1999). Patents, products and public health: An analysis of the CellPro march in petition. Berkeley Tech Law Journal, 14, 1095.
89. McManis, C. R., & Noh, S. (2006, August). The impact of the Bayh-Dole Act on genetic research and development: Evaluating the arguments and empirical evidence to date. Retrieved from http://law.wustl.edu/CLIEG/publications/mcmaniscommercializinginnovationpaper.pdf
90. McMillan, S., Duska, R., Hamilton, R., & Casey, D. (2006). The ethical dilemma of research and development openness and secrecy. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 279-285.
91. Merges, R., & Nelson, R. (1990). On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 90, 839, 885-891.
92. Merton, R. K. (1965). On the shoulders of giants: A Shandean postscript. New York: Free Press.
93. Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942)
94. Miller, A. (2005). Repairing the Bayh-Dole Act: A proposal for restoring non-profit access to university science. BC Law, Intellectual Property and Technology Forum and Journal. Retrieved from http://bciptf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=30
95. Mittelstrass, J. (2006). The future of the university and the credibility of science and scholarship. Ethical Perspectives, 13, 171-189.
96. Mody, C. C. M. (2006). Corporations, universities and instrumental communities commercializing probe microscopy, 1981-1996. Technology and Culture, 47(1), 56-80.
97. Moses, H., III., Dorsey, R. E., Matheson, D. H. M., & Thier, S. O. (2006). The financial anatomy of biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1000-1001.
98. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99.
99. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209-239). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
100. Munthe, C., & Welin, S. (1996). The morality of scientific openness. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 411-428.
101. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2005). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis (Working Paper 11465). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11465
102. National Institutes of Health. (1998, June 4). Report of the National Institutes of Health Working Group on Research Tools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nih.gov/news/researchtools/
103. National Research Council. (2005). Reaping the benefits of genomic and proteomic research: Intellectual property rights in innovation and public health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309100674
104. Nelsen, L. (1998). The rise of intellectual property protection in the American university. Science, 279, 1460-1461.
105. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 279-306.
106. Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observation on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13-19.
107. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455-467.
108. Newman, J. H. (1854). The idea of a university. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman/newmanuniversity.html
109. Niller, E. (2001, August 6). "Biotech and health": Report fails to address the downside of academic-industry collaborations. Wall Street Journal (Europe), 17.
110. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
111. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99-114.
112. Packer, K., & Webster, A. (1996). Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the wheel of credibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 427-453.
113. Pattyn, B. (2006). The ethical implications of patenting academic research. Ethical Perspectives, 13, 165-170.
114. Pierre de Maret, P. (2004, June 3-5). Charting the course between public service and commercialization: Prices, values and quality. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/TURIN_de_Maret.1086950049382.pdf
115. Pierre de Maret, P. (2007). Universities of the world: What for? In J. Sadlak & N. C. Liu (Eds.), The World Class University and ranking: Aiming beyond status (pp. 31-38). Bucharest, Romania: UNESCO-CEPES/Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
116. Powell, P. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 253-277.
117. Press, E., & Washburn, J. (2000, March). The Kept University. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200003/university-for-profit
118. Pressman, L., Burgess, R., Cook-Deegan, R. M., McCormack, S. J., Nami-Wolk, I., Soucy, M., et al. (2006). The licensing of DNA patents by U.S. academic institutions: An empirical survey. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 31-39.
119. Rafferty, M. (2008). The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy, 37, 29-40.
120. Rai, A. K. (2005). Open and collaborative research: A new model for biomedicine. In R. W. Hahn (Ed.), Intellectual property rights in Frontier Industries (pp. 131-158). Washington, DC: Brookings-AEI Press.
121. Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh-Dole reform and the progress in biomedicine. Law Contemporary Problems, 66, 289-314.
122. Rawls, J. A. (1971). Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
123. Rennie, D. (1997). Thyroid storm. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1238-1243.
124. Resnik, D. (2006). Openness versus secrecy in scientific research. Episteme, 2, 135-147.
125. Robinson, J. (1933). The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.
126. Rubins, I. (2007). Risks and rewards of academic capitalism and the effects of presidential leadership in the entrepreneurial university. Perspectives in Public Affairs, 4, 3-18.
127. Sampat, B. N. (2004). Genomic patenting by academic researchers: Bad for science? Retrieved from http://mgt.gatech.edu/news_room/news/2004/reer/files/sampat.pdf
128. Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and U.S. academic research in the 20th century. The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35, 722-789.
129. Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2003). Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1371-1390.
130. Savalescu, J. (2001). Harm, ethics committees and the gene therapy deaths. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 148-150.
131. Schachman, H. K. (2006). From publish or perish to patent and prosper. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281, 6889-6903.
132. Schacht, W. H. (2008, April). CRS Report for Congress, the Bayh-Dole Act: Selected issues in patent policy and the commercialization of technology. Retrieved from http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL32076.pdf
133. Schimmel, J. (1964). Legal requirements for patentability. In E. J. Lawson&E. A. Godula (Eds.), Patents for chemical inventions (Vol. 46, pp. 1-6). Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ba-1964-0046.ch001
134. Schulman, K. A., Seil, D. M., Timbie, J. W., Sugarman, J., Dame, L. A., Weinfurt, K. P., et al. (2002). A national survey of provisions in clinical trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1335-1341.
135. Science and Engineering Indicators. (2008). [Appendix table 5-1]. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/append/c5/at05-01.pdf
136. Seavey, N. G., Smith, J. S., & Wagner, P. (1998). A paralyzing fear: The triumph over polio in America. New York: TV Books.
137. Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.
138. Siegel, D. S., Waldmann, D. A.,& Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48.
139. Silverman, E. (2007). The trouble with tech transfer. The Scientist, 21(1), 40-41.
140. th ed.). London: The Free Press. (Original work published 1947)
141. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, states and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
142. So, A. D., Sampat, B. N., Rai, A. K., Cook-Deegan, R., Reichman, J. H., Weissman, R., et al. (2008). Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. PLoS Biology, 6(10), e262.
143. Steinbrook, R. (2005). Gag clauses in clinical trial agreements. New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 2160-2162.
144. Stephan, P. E. (2001). Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 199-205.
145. Sterckx, S. (2006). The moral justifiability of patents. Ethical Perspectives, 13, 249-265.
146. Stiglitz, J. (2006, September 16). Give prizes, not patents. New Scientist, 21.
147. Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
148. Stossel, T. P. (2005). Regulating academic-industrial research relationships-Solving problems or stifling progress? New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1060-1065.
149. Taylor, P. L. (2007) Research sharing, ethics and public benefit. Nature Biotechnology, 25, 398-401.
150. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Industry/University licensing: Characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207-218.
151. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). University licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the issues and evidence? Retrieved from http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Thursby.pdf
152. Triggle, D. J. (2005). Patenting the sun: Enclosing the scientific commons and transforming the university-Ethical concerns. Drug Development Research, 63, 139-149.
153. Trune, D. R., & Goslin, L. N. (1998). University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 197-204.
154. University of Rochester v. G. D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Retrieved from http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/358/358.F3d.916.03-1304.html
155. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33, 425-441.
156. Van Overwalle, G. (2006). Reconciling patent policies with the university mission. Ethical Perspectives, 13, 231-247.
157. Vogeli, C., Yucel, R., Bendavid, E., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., et al. (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine, 81, 128-136.
158. Walsh, J. P., Arora, A., & Cohen, W. M. (2003). Working through the patent problem. Science, 299, 1021.
159. Walsh, J. P., Cho, C., & Cohen, W. M. (2005). View from the bench: Patents and material transfers. Science, 309, 2002-2003.
160. Wang, R. L. (2008). Biomedical upstream patenting and scientific research: The case for compulsory licenses bearing reach-through royalties. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 10, 251-330.
161. Williams, A. (2009, April). Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2009). Retrieved from http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/04/ariad-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-eli-lilly-and-co-fed-cir-2009.html
162. Ziman, J. (1996). Is science losing its objectivity? Nature, 382, 751-754.