Intellectual Property Rights and Academic Health Centers

  • Jeannette Colyvas
  • Annetine Gelijns
  • Nathan Rosenberg


Academic Health Centers have become an increasingly important locus of inventive activity in biomedicine. The observed increase in patenting and licensing activity taking place at AHCs has called attention to this phenomenon but has also raised questions about the impact on the creation and diffusion of important technologies and research tools. This paper explores the contributions of academic health centers in generating new medical technologies, addressing the ways in which intellectual property rights affect technological innovation and diffusion. The paper underscores the relevance of understanding important features of the innovative process, namely the nature and degree of uncertainty in technological change. The paper draws on patent data and case studies from Columbia and Stanford University to illustrate these issues and raises questions about the costs and benefits of various commercialization strategies and university patenting approaches.


Intellectual Property Research Tool Fluorescence Activate Cell Sorter Inventive Activity Patent System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature References

  1. Arrow, Kenneth. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: economic and social factors. A conference of the Universities National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and the Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, 609–626. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). Licensing Survey, FY 1999: Full Report.Google Scholar
  3. Audretsch David B. and Stephan Paula E. Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology. The American Economic Review 1996; 86 (3): 641–52.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, Paul; Baltimore, Brenner, David, Sydney; Roblin III, Richard O. and Singer, Maxine. Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Science, New Series. 1975; 188 (4192): 991–4.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, Paul; Baltimore, David; Brenner, Sydney; Roblin III, Richard O. and Singer, Maxine. Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; 1975 June; 1981–1984: Volume 72, Issue 6.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, Paul and Singer, Maxine. The Recombinant DNA Controversy: Twenty Years Later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA; 1995 September; Volume 92: 9011.Google Scholar
  7. Ernst and Young. “Biotech 99—Bridging the Gap”.
  8. Gelijns, Annetine, Innovation in Clinical Practice: The Dynamics of Medical Technology Development. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. Gelijns, Annetine, Rosenberg, Nathan and Moskowitz, Alan. Capturing the Unexpected Benefits of Medical Research. New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 339: 693–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelijns, Annetine and Rosenberg, Nathan. “Diagnostic Devices: An analysis of Comparative Advantage”. In Sources of Medical Technology: University and Industry, AC Gelijns and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, D. C: National Academy Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. Hulett R. H., Bonner W.A., Barrett J. and Herzenberg L.A. Cell Sorting: Automated Separation of Mammalian cells as a function of Intracellular Fluorescence. Science 1969; 166: 747–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herzenberg, Leonore, De Rosa, Steve and Herzenberg, Leonard. Monoclonal Antibodies and the FACS: Complementary Tools for Immunobiology and Medicine. Immunology Today 2000; 21 (8): 383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. The Lewin Group. Outlook for Medical Technology Innovation. The State of the Industry. Washington DC: Health Industry Manufacturers Association, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Marx, Jean L. Molecular Cloning: Powerful Tool for Studying Genes. Science, New Series. 1976; 191 (4232): 1160–2.Google Scholar
  15. Marx, Jean L. The New P4 Laboratories: Containing Recombinant DNA. Science, New Series. 1977; 197 (4311): 1350–2.Google Scholar
  16. Mitchell, William. Dynamic Commercialization: An Organizational Economic Analysis of Innovation in the Medical Diagnostic Imaging Industry. Dissertation submitted to the University of California, Berkeley, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. National Institutes of Health. Sharing Biomedical Research Resources: Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Research Grants and Contracts.Google Scholar
  18. National Institutes of Health, Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Research Tools, June 4,1998. .Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council, Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology: Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences; 1996 February 15–16; Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. Reimers, Niels. Tiger by the Tail. Chemtech 1987; 464–71. Reprinted in The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, Volume 7,1995.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenberg, Nathan. “Uncertainty and Technological Change”. In The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Ralph Landau, Timothy Taylor, and Gavin Wright, eds. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. Sampat, Bhaven, Development of Co-Transformation Technology. Working paper, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Shapiro, Howard M., Practical Flow Cytometry. New York: Wily-Liss, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
  24. Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing Annual Report 1997–98.Google Scholar
  25. White, J.V. Laparascopic Cholecystectomy: the Evolution of General Surgery. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991; 115: 651–3.Google Scholar
  26. Zucker, Lynne G. and Darby, Michael R. Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; 1996 November 12; Volume 93, Number 23: 12709–12716.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeannette Colyvas
    • 1
  • Annetine Gelijns
    • 2
  • Nathan Rosenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations