Abstract
Since the early 1980s, US research universities have rapidly expanded their involvement with technology commercialization, the process by which university innovation is transferred to the marketplace via patenting and licensing activities. A considerable literature has developed around this phenomenon, which has explored its benefits for speeding innovation for societal benefit, others have raised concerns in regards to the implications of privatizing the intellectual commons that has long characterized the conduct of university-based research. This study explores conflict of interest issues as revealed through the study of university licensing documents. Utilizing the tool of content analysis, I investigated 306 licensing deals between 181 companies and 81 US universities. The findings revealed extensive use of exclusive licensing, equity arrangements with faculty and institutions, faculty in managerial positions, and contract language often with considerable firm control over publication or extensive rights to delay publication. Such practices suggest concern in regards to faculty distraction from their primary duties to the institution and individual or organizational interestedness in commercialization outcomes that may undermine the social contract for science.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson MS, Louis KS (1994) The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Res High Educ 35:273–299
Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC (2010) Extending the Mertonian norms: scientists’ subscription to norms of research. J High Educ 81:366–393
Angell M (2000) Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 342:1516–1518
Angell M, Relman AS (2002) Patents, profits, & American medicine: conflicts of interest in the testing & marketing of new drugs. Daedalus 131, 102–211
Association of University Technology Managers (2012). AUTM licensing survey FY 2011. AUTM Northbrook, IL
Association of University Technology Managers (2012). About Technol Trans. http://www.autm.net/Tech_Transfer/9867.htm
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Cross GP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 389:454–459
Blumenstyk G (2004, March 12) A contrarian approach to technology transfer. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A27, 28
Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science. JAMA 277:1224–1228
Bok D (2003) Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Boyd EA, Bero LA (2000) Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry. JAMA 284:2209–2214
Bray MJ, Lee JN (2000) University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. J Bus Ventur 15:385–392
Campbell TID (1997) Public policy for the 21st century: Addressing potential conflicts in university-industry collaboration. Rev of High Educ 20:357–379
Carney TF (1972) Content analysis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg
Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D (2000) Policies on faculty conflict of interest at US universities. JAMA 284:2203–2208
Connolly C (2004, August 5) NIH declines to enter AIDS drug price battle. Washington Post, p A04
Creswell JW (2008) Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160
Edwards MG, Murray F, Yu R (2003) Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nat Biotechnol 21:618–624
Franzosi R (2007) Content analysis: objective, systematic, and quantitative description of content. In: Franzosi R (ed) Content analysis, (pp xxi-1). Sage Thousand Oaks
Gillis J (2002, January 10) Geron keeps some stem-cell rights. Washington Post, p E04
Gluck ME, Blumenthal D, Stoto MA (1987) University-industry relationships in the life-sciences: implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Res Policy 16:327–336
Grimes A (2004, August 23) Why Stanford is celebrating the google IPO. The Wall Street Journal, p B1
Kenny M (1986) Biotechnology: the university-industrial complex. Yale University Press, London
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. Br Med J 326:1167–1170
Louis KS, Jones LM, Campbell EG (2002) Sharing in science. Am Sci 90:304–307
Mangan KS (2000, May 19) Harvard weighs a change in conflict-of-interest rules. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A47–48
Marcus AD (1999, June 24). MIT students, lured to new tech firms, get caught in a bind. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1,6
Marino KE, Castaldi RM, Dollinger MJ (1989, Fall) Conent analysis in entrepreneurship research: the case of initial public offerings. Entrepreneurship Theor Pract 14:51–66
Merrill SA, Mazza AM (2010) Managing university intellectual property rights in the public interest. National Research Council, Washington
Merton RK (1942) A note on science and democracy. J Legal Political Sociol 1:115–126
Mitroff II (1974) The subjective side of science: a philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the apollo moon scientists. Elsevier, Amsterdam
National Science Board (2012) Science and engineering indicators 2011. Natl Sci Found, Arlington, VA
Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row, New York
Powers J (2004) Inside the black box: university licensing to companies that go public. J Assoc Univ Technol Managers 16(1):11–28
Powers J, Campbell E (2009, November/December) University technology transfer in tough economic times. Change 43–47
Press E, Washburn J (2000, March) The kept university. Atlantic Monthly, pp 39–54
Rai AK, Eisenberg RS (2003) Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Am Sci 91:52–59
Slaughter S, Campbell T, Holleman M, Morgan E (2002) The “traffic” in graduate students: graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Sci Technol Human Values 27:282–312
Slaughter S, Leslie D (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Johns-Hopkins, Baltimore
Swazey JP, Louis KS, Anderson MS (1994) Ethical problems in academic research. Am Sci 81:542–553
Thompson L (2000, September–October) Human gene therapy—harsh lessons, high hopes. FDA Consumer 34(5):12–18
Winston G (1998, March 27) Economic research shows that higher education is not just another business. Chronicle Higher Education, p B6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Powers, J.B. (2014). Conflict of Interest and US University Technology Licensing. In: Li, Q., Gerstl-Pepin, C. (eds) Survival of the Fittest. New Frontiers of Educational Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39813-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39813-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39812-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39813-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)