I'm reading University Inc., a book that concerns the increasing influence of market forces on academic culture.
In the introduction, the author states:
quote: "When researchers at the University of Utah discovered an important human gene responsible for hereditary breast cancer, for example, they didn't make it freely available to other scientists, even though we -- the U.S. taxpayters-- paid $4.6 million to finance the research. They raced to patent it and gave the monopoly rights to Myriad Genetics, Inc,. a start-up company founded by a University of Utah professor...
First off, do you remember this incident? Secondly, I imagine that you have a close view of any improprieties, do you see a growing sense of proprietary culture in the sciences? Do you think that commercial values are driving scientific exploration in an untoward manner?
[ April 01, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Bump for the Rabbit.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Luring that Rabbit.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I don't have a problem with people patenting things. I just have a problem with people patenting things that:
1. Were developed or discovered by a TEAM but patented by an individual.
2. Were funded by government or a university, which then does not receive a share of the royalties.
3. Were funded by government or a university which then does not give the actual creator or discoverers a royalty.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
There have been a number of cases lately where doctors find something in a patients blood, such as natural antibodies to a virus that no one has ever seen...so they rush out there and patent the way it works.
I find this to be incredible...they noticed a natural reaction in a patients blood, and somehow they have the right to patent the way it works so that no one else can do any work on the possible cures unless that Doctor gets paid royalties?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I've seen cases where large drug companies stage mock patent disputes against each other in order to artificially protect their patents against legitimate generic drug applications (ANDA).
So hundreds die, thousands suffer, and millions overpay for medication, just so the drug companies can drive up their profit. *sigh*
Posted by BunnV (Member # 6816) on :
quote: 3. Were funded by government or a university which then does not give the actual creator or discoverers a royalty.
When I applied for a job at the University of Florida I had to sign "the Gatorade Clause." As the employer explained to me, apparently all the royalties went to the University after the inventor came up with the formula for Gatorade. Signing the clause then meant any bright idea I would come up with would be rightfully UF's.
I was applying for a campus tour guide position, so I figure I'd take my chances.
I wonder if most State Universities do that.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
You should not be able to patent discoveries, just unique inventions.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scott,
Is there a principled argument against the influence of proprietary culture on the ethos of free inquiry that belongs to academia?
I know you see the PC movement compromising our schools from the left, but in the last two decades, the "branding" of Universities as engines of economic growth has gone far to empower those disciplines that make money, concern money, and attract money, at the expense of the humanities. This commercial influence has informed the place that Universities have in our American narrative, as many Universities are defining themselves instigators for the next Silicon Valley.
Forget the Ken Lay Center for the Study of Markets in Transition at Rice University or the ExxonMobil foundational $100 Million investment in Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy, there is a disturbing trail of private enterprises underwriting academic departments or studies, in order to trade on the unbiased appearance of a favorable University based study.
The stories of these same businesses using their sway to surpress unsupportive findings are disturbing.
I'm not saying that I'm against commerce and industry relations, per se, but I think it's good to draw distinct boundaries and not confuse their disparate interests. This means that universities have to belly up to the bar and offer of positive statement concerning the place of education in America, and I fear the lack of courage and insight may work against them. There is something manly about businesses proudly looking out for their own interests, but administrators and faculty at educational institutions are scared to speak baldly about serving the public trust.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)