Intellectual Property vs. Science

  • Michael Perelman


The intense efforts to protect the sanctity of intellectual property are ironic. Although the promoters of intellectual property justify their claims on the basis of the wonders of new technology, the flowering of today’s commercial successes depends on scientific discoveries from decades ago, when science still enjoyed considerable public funding. However, the private interests that now stake claims for intellectual property rarely recognize how much this earlier work, centered in universities or government agencies, enriched the public domain of science and technology.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Francis Narin, Kimberly S. Hamilton, and Dominic Olivastro, “The Increasing Linkage Between U.S. Technology and Public Science,” Research Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3 (1997): 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paula E. Stephan, “The Economics of Science,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1996): 1227.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    James D. Adams, “Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (August 1990): 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 6.
    Renate Mayntz, “Socialist Academies of Sciences: The Enforced Orientation of Basic Research at User Needs,” Research Policy, Vol. 27 (1998): 791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 8.
    Paul A. David, “Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of “Open Science” Institutions.” American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2 (May 1998): 17.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    David Levy, “The Market for Fame and Fortune,” History of Political Economy, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Winter 1998): 615–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 12.
    Stephan, “The Economics of Science,” pp. 1201–8; Paula E. Stephan and Sharon G. Levin, Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 18.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    Robert King Merton, Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 610.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    Robert King Merton, On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript (NY: Free Press, 1965).Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    Melvin Krantzberg, “Technology and History: ‘Krantzberg’s Laws,’” Technology and Culture, Vol. 27, No. 3 (July 1986): 549.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Daniel G. Dupont and Richard Lardner, “Needles in a Cold War Haystack,” Scientific American, Vol. 275, No. 4 (November 1996): 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 18.
    Judith Reppy, “Military R&D and the Civilian Economy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 41, No. 9 (October 1985): 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 20.
    Alfred E. Kahn, “Fundamental Deficiencies of the American Patent Law,” American Economic Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (September 1940), p. 479.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    Michael Polanvyi, “Patent Reform,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Summer 1944): 70–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 22.
    Eric von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    See Friedrich A. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (September 1945): 519–30.Google Scholar
  17. 24.
    See Richard R. Nelson, “The Link Between Science and Invention: The Case of the Transistor,” in Richard R. Nelson, ed. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 549–83Google Scholar
  18. Richard R. Nelson, The Sources of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 179.Google Scholar
  19. 33.
    Michael J. L. O’Connor, The Origins of Academic Economics in the United States (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944).Google Scholar
  20. 34.
    James C. Williams, “Frederick E. Terman and the Rise of Silicon Valley,” International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 16, No. 8 (1998): 751–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 38.
    Thorstein Velben, The Higher Learning in America: Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men (NY: B. W Huebsch, 1918).Google Scholar
  22. 39.
    Clyde W Barrow, Universities and the Capitalist State (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), pp. 61–71.Google Scholar
  23. 41.
    G. Pascal Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century (NY: Free Press, 1997), p. 183.Google Scholar
  24. 46.
    Richard Nelson and Nathan Rosenberg, “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry,” Research Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3 (May 1994): 324.Google Scholar
  25. 51.
    W.W. Powell and J. Owen-Smith, “Universities and the Market for Intellectual Property in the Life Sciences,” in Burton A. Weisbrod, ed. To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 174.Google Scholar
  26. 53.
    Richard Arman Gregory, Discovery, Or, The Spirit and Service of Science (NY: Macmillan, 1916), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 58.
    William L. Goffe and Robert P. Parks, “The Future Information Infrastructure in Economics,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Summer 1997): 79.Google Scholar
  28. 60.
    See Yale Braunstein,. “Information as a Commodity: Public Policy Issues and Recent Research.,” in Information Services: Economics, Management, and Technology, ed. Robert M. Mason and John E. Creps, Jr. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981), p. 19.Google Scholar
  29. 62.
    W. Wayt Gibbs, “Information Haves and Have-Nots,” Scientific American, Vol. 272, No. 5 (May 1995): 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 63.
    Andrew R. Albanese, “Persistent Suitor,” Lingua Franca, Vol. 10, No. 9 (December 2000/ January 2001): 23–24.Google Scholar
  31. 64.
    Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1997), p. 7.Google Scholar
  32. 70.
    Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Tuition Rising: Why College Costs So Much (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  33. 86.
    Lawrence C. Soley, Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia (Boston: South End Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  34. 89.
    Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1996), p. 36 ff.Google Scholar
  35. 91.
    Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn, “The Kept University,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 285, No. 3 (March 2000): 41.Google Scholar
  36. 98.
    Rebecca Henderson and Iain Cockburn, “Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery,” Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Spring 1996): 32–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 99.
    Editorial, “Tightening Grip of Big Pharma,” The Lancet, Vol. 357, No. 9263 (2001), p. 1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 105.
    AnnaLee Saxenian, “Comment on Kenney and von Burg, ‘Technology, Entrepreneurship and Path Dependence: Industrial Cluster in Silicon Valley and Route 128,’” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 8, No. 1 (March 1999): 105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 108.
    Susan Zolla-Pazner, “The Professor, the University, and Industry,” Scientific American, Vol. 268, No. 3 (March 1994): 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 109.
    Susan Zolla-Pazner, “The Professor, the University, and Industry,” Scientific American, Vol. 268, No. 3 (March 1994): p. 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 112.
    W Wayt Gibbs, “The Price of Silence” Scientific American, Vol. 274, No. 4 (November 1996): 15–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 113.
    Stephan and Levin, Striking the Mother Lode in Science, p. 15; citing Lewis Wolpert and Alison Richards, A Passion for Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 106.Google Scholar
  43. 114.
    Gretchen Vogel, “Long-Suppressed Study Finally Sees Light of Day,” Science, Vol. 676, No. 2312 (April 25, 1997): 525–26.Google Scholar
  44. 116.
    Goldie Blumenstyk, “Researchers Tell of Battling for the Right to Publish Negative Findings,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 54, No. 31 (April 9, 1999): A 44.Google Scholar
  45. 120.
    Richard Horton, “Lotronex and the FDA: A Fatal Erosion of Integrity,” The Lancet, Vol. 357, No. 9268 (2001): 1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 122.
    Eric G. Campbell, Joel S. Weissman, Nancyanne Causino, and David Blumenthal, “Data Withholding in Academic Medicine: Characteristics of Faculty Denied Access to Research Results and Biomaterials,” Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2 (February 2000): 303–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 123.
    Anon, “Is the University-Industrial Complex Out of Control?,” Nature, Vol. 409, No. 6817 (January 11, 2001): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 124.
    Sheldon Krimsky, L. S. Rothenberg, P. Stott, and G. Kyle, “Financial Interests of Authors in Scientific Journals: A Pilot Study of 14 Publications,” Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 2 (1996): 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 125.
    Henry Thomas Stelfox, Grace Chua, Keith O’Rourke, and Allan S. Detsky, “Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 338, No. 2 (January 8, 1998): 101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael Perelman 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Perelman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations