The Stakes in Bayh-Dole: Public Values Beyond the Pace of Innovation

Minerva

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 25-46

  Valdivia, Walter D ^a,b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayh Dole; Evaluation; Pace of innovation; Political equality; Public values

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953033351     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-011-9162-6     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Arno, Peter S., and Michael H. Davis. 2001. Why don't we enforce existing drug price controls?: The unrecognized and unenforced reasonable pricing requirements imposed upon patents deriving in whole or in part from federally funded research. Tulane Law Review 75: 632-693.
2. Baumol, William J., Richard R. Nelson, and Edward N. Wolff. 1994. Convergence of productivity: Cross-national studies and historical evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bayh, Birch, Joseph Allen, and Howard W. Bremer. 2009. Universities, inventors and the Bayh-Dole Act. Life Sciences Law and Industry Report 24(3): 1-5.
4. Bator, Francis M. 1958. The anatomy of market failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 72(3): 351-379.
5. Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review 62(2): 134-151.
6. Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and the Public Interest. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
7. Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in U. S. science policy. Science and Public Policy 32(2): 119-136.
8. Bruno, Isabelle. 2009. The "indefinite discipline" of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47(3): 261-280.
9. Cohen, Wesley M., Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U. S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working papers, no. 7552. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. Cohen, Wesley M., Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R& D. Management Science 48(1): 1-23.
11. Colyvas, Jeannette, Michael Crow, Annetine Gelijns, Roberto Mazzoleni, Richard R. Nelson, Nathan Rosenberg, and Bhaven N. Sampat. 2002. How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science 48(1): 61-72.
12. Dewey, John. 1927. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt.
13. Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 1996. Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government- sponsored research. Virginia Law Review 82(8): 1663-1727.
14. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Simon Schwartzman, Helga Nowotny, Martin Trow, and Peter Scott. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15. Greenberg, Daniel S. 2007. Science for sale: The perils, rewards and delusions of campus capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Fagerberg, Jan. 1988. International competitiveness. Economic Journal 98(391): 355-374.
17. Feeney, Mary K., and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public values and public failure: Implications of the 2004-2005 flu vaccine case. Public Integrity 9(2): 175-190.
18. Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hacker, Jacob S. 1997. The road to nowhere: The genesis of President Clinton's plan for health security. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20. Harvard Business Review. 2010. The HBR list: Breakthrough ideas for 2010. Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb).
21. Harvey, David. 2007. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Haskins, Keshia B. 1998. Special 301 in China and Mexico: A policy which fails to consider how politics, economics, and culture affect legal change under Civil Law systems of developing countries. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 9: 1125-1170.
23. Hatsopoulos, George N., Paul R. Krugman, and Lawrence H. Summers. 1988. US competitiveness: Beyond the trade deficit. Science 241(4863): 299-307.
24. Heller, Michael A. 1998. The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review 111(3): 621-688.
25. Heller, Michael A., and Rebecca S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364): 698-701.
26. Henderson, Rebecca, Adam B. Jaffe, and Manuel Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-1988. The Review of Economic Statistics 80: 119-127.
27. Hood, Christopher. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69: 3-119.
28. Hood, Christopher, and Guy Peters. 2004. The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(3): 267-282.
29. Horn, Murray J., and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1989. Commentary on "Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies": Administrative process and organizational form as legislative responses to agency costs. Virginia Law Review 75(2): 499-508.
30. Jaffe, Adam, and Josh Lerner. 2004. Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31. Jensen, Richard, and Marie Thursby. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review 91(1): 240-259.
32. Judson, Horace F. 2004. The great betrayal: Fraud in science. Orlando: Harcourt.
33. Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy 38: 1407-1422.
34. Klein, Lawrence R. 1988. Components of competitiveness. Science 241(4863): 308-313.
35. Krugman, Paul. 1994. Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs 72(2): 28-44.
36. Levin, Richard C., Alvin K. Kevorick, Richard R. Nelson, and Sidney G. Winter. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3: 783-820.
37. Litan, Robert E., Lesa Mitchell, and E. J. Reedy. 2007. The university as innovator: Bumps in the road. Issues in Science and Technology. http://www. issues. org/23. 4/litan. html. Accessed 15 May 2009.
38. Lowi, Theodore J. 1995. The end of the Republican era. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
39. Mazzeloni, Roberto, and Richard R. Nelson. 1998. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy 27(3): 273-284.
40. McCloskey, Herbert, and John Zaller. 1984. The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
41. Meeropol, M. 1998. Surrender: How the Clinton administration completed the Reagan revolution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
42. Merges, Robert P., and Richard R. Nelson. 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90: 839-916.
43. McCubbins, Matthew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law Economics and Organization 3(2): 243-277.
44. Mirowski, Philip, and Esther-Mirjam Sent. 2007. The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed, eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 635-690. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
45. Mirowski, Philip. 2009. Postface: Defining neoliberalism. In The road from Mont Pèlerin: The making of the neoliberal thought collective, eds. Philip Mirowski, and Dieter Plehwe, 417-455. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
46. Mowery, David C., Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
47. Mowery, David C., and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2002. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy 31: 399-418.
48. National Cancer Institute. 2000. Solicitation, molecular target laboratories. Commerce Business Daily, published in CBDNet on February 18, 2000.
49. National Institutes of Health. 1997. Determination in the case of petition of Cellpro, Inc. August. http://www. nih. gov/news/pr/aug97/nihb-01. htm. Accessed 12 June 2009.
50. National Institutes of Health. 2004a. Determination in the case of Norvir manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, Inc. July 2. http://ott. od. nih. gov/policy/March-In-Norvir. pdf. Accessed 12 June 2009.
51. National Institutes of Health. 2004b. Determination in the case of Xalatan manufactured by Pfizer, Inc. September 1. http://ott. od. nih. gov/policy/March-in-xalatan. pdf. Accessed 12 June 2009.
52. National Research Council. 2010. Managing University intellectual property in the public interest. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
53. Nedeva, Maria, and Rebecca Boden. 2006. Changing science: The advent of neo-liberalism. Prometheus 24(3): 269-281.
54. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden: Blackwell.
55. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2003. Introduction. 'Mode 2' revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3): 179-194.
56. Pestre, Dominique. 2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41(3): 245-261.
57. Pestre, Dominique. 2005. The technosciences between markets, social worries and the political: How to imagine a better future? In The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science, and the law, eds. Helga Nowotny, Dominique Pestre, Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz, and Hans-Heinrich Trute, 29-52. New York: Springer.
58. Plehwe, Dieter, and Bernhard Walber. 2006. Between network and complex organization: The making of neoliberal knowledge and hegemony. In Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique, eds. Bernhard Walpen, Dieter Plehwe, and Gisela Nuenhöffer, 27-70. London: Routledge.
59. Pollin, Robert. 2003. Contours of descent: U. S. economic fractures and the landscape of global austerity. London: Verso.
60. Pollit, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2004. Public management reform: A comparative analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
61. Porter, Michael E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.
62. Porter, Michael E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.
63. Rafferty, Matthew. 2008. The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy 37: 29-40.
64. Sampat, Bhaven N. 2006. Universities and intellectual property: Shaping a new patent policy for government funded academic research. In Shaping science and technology policy: The next generation of research, eds. David H. Guston, and Daniel Sarewitz, 55-76. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
65. Sampat, Bhaven N., David C. Mowery, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2003. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21(9): 1371-1390.
66. Samuelson, Paul A. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 387-389.
67. Scherer, F. Michael. 2009. The political economy of patent policy reform in the United States. Journal of Telecommunications and High-Technology Law 7(2): 101-148.
68. Schneider, Anne L., and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
69. Shapiro, Carl. 2000. Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy 1: 119-150.
70. Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
71. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values 21(3): 303-339.
72. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
73. Stevens, Ashley J. 2004. The Enactment of Bayh-Dole. Journal of Technology Transfer 29(1): 93-99.
74. Turner, Rachel S. 2008. Neo-liberal ideology: History, concepts and policies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
75. Thursby, Jerry, and Marie Thursby. 2006. Where is the new science in corporate R& D. Science 314(8): 1547-1548.
76. U. S. Senate. 1980. Statement of Senator Birch Bayh to the Committee on the Judiciary and Commerce, on government patent policy, January 25, 1980. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.
77. van Horn, R., and Philip Mirowski. 2009. The rise of the Chicago school of economics and the birth of neoliberalism. In The road from Mont Pèlerin: The making of the neoliberal thought collective, eds. Philip Mirowski, and Dieter Plehwe, 139-178. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
78. Walsh, John P., Ashish Arora, and Wesley M. Cohen. 2003. The patenting and licensing of research tools and biomedical innovation. In Patents in the knowledge-based economy, eds. Wesley M. Cohen, and Stephen A. Merrill, 285-340. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
79. Washburn, Jennifer. 2005. University Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. New York: Basic Books.
80. Woolley, John T., and Gerhard Peters. 2009a. The American Presidency Project [online]. University of California Santa Barbara. http://www. presidency. ucsb. edu/ws/?pid=3130. Accessed 8 Jan 2009.
81. Woolley, John T., and Gerhard Peters. 2009b. The American Presidency Project [online]. University of California Santa Barbara. http://www. presidency. ucsb. edu/ws/?pid=40945. Accessed 8 Jan 2009.
82. Zaller, J. R. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.