Abstract
Open science represents a challenge to traditional modes of scientific practice and collaboration. Knowledge exchange is still heavily influenced by researchers ambition to publish in highly cited journals and within ‘closed partnerships’ (Holmes, Nature 533: 54, 2016) where interactions are based on patenting based on IPR. However, perceived inefficiencies, a desire to make publically funded research available to all and a crisis of confidence in the quality of research published in top journals all serve to fuel demands for more openness in the conduct of science and the exchange of scientific knowledge. Whilst there is a strong logic behind the contention that increased openness will promote efficiencies, quality and fairness, there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact on university/industry collaboration and the balance that needs to be struck between open and closed approaches. Policy obstacles are also likely to impede the pace of change.
The chapter strongly draws upon a previous publication by the authors: Chataway J., Parks S., Smith E. (2017) How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration? Foresight and STI Governance, vol. 11, no 2, pp. 44–53.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Ebola (www.eboladata.org).
- 2.
For example, an open science initiative for Malaria: www.opensourcemalaria.org
- 3.
- 4.
Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0: Science in Transition http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_final_report.pdf
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
U.S. OSTP (ND) ‘OSTP Public Access Policy Forum’, https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/publicaccesspolicy
References
Aarts AA, Anderson JE, Anderson CJ et al (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Archambault E, Amyot D, Deschamps P, Nicol A, Rebout L, Roberge G (2013) Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004–2011. ScienceMetrix for European Commission DG Research & Innovation, Brussels. As of 19 August 2014: http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf
Arora A, Athreye S (2012) Patent incentives: returns to patenting and the inducement for research & development. Intellectual Property Office research paper no. 2012/20, November 2012
Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533
Bubela T, Gold ER, Graff GD, Cahoy DR, Nicol D, Castle D (2013) Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: toward consistent and transparent practices. Nat Biotechnol 31(3):202–206
Burk D, Lemley M (2009) The patent crisis and how the courts can solve it. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Chalmers I, Glazsiou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–89
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis PA, Oliver S (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383(9912):156–165
Chataway J, Smith J (2007) Shaping scientific excellence in agricultural research. International J Biotechnol 9(2):172–180
Chataway J, Hanlin R, Mugwagwa J, Muraguri L (2010) Global health social technologies: reflections on evolving theories and landscapes. Res Policy 39(10):1277–1288
Council of the European Union (2016) Outcome of proceedings of May 27, 2016 – RECH 208 TELECOM 100, 9526/16. Brussels. As of 19 August 2016: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9526-2016-INIT/en/pdf
Edwards E (2013) The prevailing view in biomedicine and drug discovery is that we need more “innovation”. Available at: http://www.thesgc.org/blog/biotech-and-innovation, Accessed 19 June 2016
Eisenberg RS (2012) Wisdom of the ages or dead-hand control? Patentable subject matter for diagnostic methods after in Re Bilski. Case West Res J Law Technol Internet 3(1):1–65
European Commission (2012a) Commission recommendation of 17 July 2012 on access to and preservation of scientific information. COM(2012) 4890 final, Brussels. As of 19 August 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/recommendation-access-and-preservation-scientific-information_en.pdf
European Commission (2012b) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: a reinforced European research area partnership for excellence and growth COM(2012) 392 final, Brussels. As of 19 August 2016: http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/era-communication_en.pdf
European Commission (2015) Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0: science in transition, Brussels: European Commission. As of 19 August 2016: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/science_2_0_final_report.pdf
Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13(6):e1002165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooden S, Grant J (2013) Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. MG-1217-AAMC. As of 19 August 2016: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html
Hayden EC (2012) Study challenges existence of arsenic-based life. Nature:1038. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.9861
Heller M (1998) The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from marx to markets. Harvard Law Rev 111:621–688
Heller M (2016) The tragedy of the anti-commons. http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/08/13/the-tragedy-of-the-anticommons/
Holmes D (2016) A new chapter in innovation. Nature 533:54
Hopkins MM, Martin PA, Nightingale P (2007) The myth of the biotech revolution: an assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change. Res Policy 36(4):566–589
Keserű J(2015) A new approach to measuring the impact of open data. Sunlight foundation blog. May 5, 2015. As of 19 August 2016: https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/05/05/a-new-approach-to-measuring-the-impact-of-open-data/
Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, Falkenberg LS, Kennett C, Slowik A, Sonnleitner C, Hess-Holden C, Errington TM (2016) Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biol 14(5):e1002456. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456
Kleiner S, Horton R (2014) How should medical science change? Lancet 383(9913):197–198
Lateral Economics (2016) Permission granted: the economic value of data assets under alternative policy regimes. A lateral economics report for the Open Data Institute. https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/309810679?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed. Accessed 21 Mar 2017
Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, Salman RA, Chan A, Glasziou P (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912):101–104
Manville C, Jones MM, Frearson M, Castle-Clarke S, Henham ML, Gunashekar S, Grant J (2015) Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: an evaluation: findings and observations. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR727.html
Marjanovic S, Robin E, Lichten CA, Harte E, MacLure C, Parks S, Horvath V, Côté G, Roberge G, Rashid M (2015) A review of the dementia research landscape and workforce capacity in the United Kingdom. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. RR-1186-ALZSOC. As of 19 August 2016: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1186/RAND_RR1186.pdf
Marshall E (2012) U.S. appeals court hears gene patent arguments. Science 337(6092):277–278
McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, McDougall D, Nosek BA, Ram K, Soderberg CK, Spies JR (2016) How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5:145. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800
Moedas C (2015) Open innovation, open science, open to the world. A new start for Europe: opening to an ERA of innovation conference, 22 June 2015, SPEECH-15-5243, Brussels. As of 19 August 2016: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5243_en.htm
Morgan Jones M, Castle-Clarke S, Brooker D, Nason E, Huzair F, Chataway J (2014) The structural genomics consortium. A knowledge platform for drug discovery RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA RR-512-SGC As of 19 August 2016: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR512.html
Nelson RR (2004) The market economy and the scientific commons. Res Policy 33:455–471
NESTA (2007) How innovation happens in six ‘low innovation’ sectors. Research report, London
Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2016) Amsterdam call for action on open science. Publication of the Dutch Presidency of May 7, 2016. Brussels. As of 19 August 2016: http://english.eu2016.nl/binaries/eu2016-en/documents/reports/2016/04/04/amsterdam-call-for-action-on-open-science/amsterdam-call-for-action-on-open-science.pdf
Owen G, Hopkins M (2016) Science, the state and the city: Britain’s struggle to succeed in biotechnology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res Policy 32(9):1695–1711
Savage N (2016) Competition: unlikely partnerships. Nature 533(7602):S56–S58. https://doi.org/10.1038/533S56a
Stern N (2016) Building on success and learning from experience. An independent review of the research excellence framework. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of the UK Government, London
Swan A, Gargouri Y Hunt M, Harnad S (2015) Open access policy: numbers, analysis, effectiveness. Pasteur4OA Work package 3 report, Open access policies
Tait J, Chataway J (2007) The governance of corporations, technological change, and risk: examining industrial perspectives on the development of genetically modified crops. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 25:21–37
Taylor J, Markanovic S, Nolte E, Pollitt A, Rubin J (2015) Treatment for dementia: learning from breakthroughs for other conditions. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. RR-909-DH. As of 19 August 2016: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR909.html
Van den Eynden V, Bishop L (2014) Incentives and motivations for sharing research data, a researcher’s perspective. Knowledge exchange report, University of Essex. As of 19 August 2016: http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/event/sowing-the-seed
Vincent-Lamarre P, Boivin J, Gargouri Y, Larivière V, Harnad S (2016) Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: the MELIBEA score. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23601
Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC (2015) Make outbreak research open access. Nature 518(7540):477–479
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chataway, J., Parks, S., Smith, E. (2018). How Will Open Science Impact on University/Industry Collaborations?. In: Meissner, D., Erdil, E., Chataway, J. (eds) Innovation and the Entrepreneurial University. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62649-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62649-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62648-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62649-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)