Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict of Interest and US University Technology Licensing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Survival of the Fittest

Part of the book series: New Frontiers of Educational Research ((NFER))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson MS, Louis KS (1994) The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Res High Educ 35:273–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angell M (2000) Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 342:1516–1518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angell M, Relman AS (2002) Patents, profits, & American medicine: conflicts of interest in the testing & marketing of new drugs. Daedalus 131, 102–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers (2012). AUTM licensing survey FY 2011. AUTM Northbrook, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenstyk G (2004, March 12) A contrarian approach to technology transfer. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A27, 28

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science. JAMA 277:1224–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok D (2003) Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd EA, Bero LA (2000) Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry. JAMA 284:2209–2214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray MJ, Lee JN (2000) University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. J Bus Ventur 15:385–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell TID (1997) Public policy for the 21st century: Addressing potential conflicts in university-industry collaboration. Rev of High Educ 20:357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney TF (1972) Content analysis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D (2000) Policies on faculty conflict of interest at US universities. JAMA 284:2203–2208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly C (2004, August 5) NIH declines to enter AIDS drug price battle. Washington Post, p A04

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2008) Research design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48:147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards MG, Murray F, Yu R (2003) Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nat Biotechnol 21:618–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzosi R (2007) Content analysis: objective, systematic, and quantitative description of content. In: Franzosi R (ed) Content analysis, (pp xxi-1). Sage Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillis J (2002, January 10) Geron keeps some stem-cell rights. Washington Post, p E04

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimes A (2004, August 23) Why Stanford is celebrating the google IPO. The Wall Street Journal, p B1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny M (1986) Biotechnology: the university-industrial complex. Yale University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis KS, Jones LM, Campbell EG (2002) Sharing in science. Am Sci 90:304–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangan KS (2000, May 19) Harvard weighs a change in conflict-of-interest rules. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A47–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus AD (1999, June 24). MIT students, lured to new tech firms, get caught in a bind. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1,6

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill SA, Mazza AM (2010) Managing university intellectual property rights in the public interest. National Research Council, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1942) A note on science and democracy. J Legal Political Sociol 1:115–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff II (1974) The subjective side of science: a philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the apollo moon scientists. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (2012) Science and engineering indicators 2011. Natl Sci Found, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers J (2004) Inside the black box: university licensing to companies that go public. J Assoc Univ Technol Managers 16(1):11–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers J, Campbell E (2009, November/December) University technology transfer in tough economic times. Change 43–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Press E, Washburn J (2000, March) The kept university. Atlantic Monthly, pp 39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai AK, Eisenberg RS (2003) Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Am Sci 91:52–59

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter S, Leslie D (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Johns-Hopkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Swazey JP, Louis KS, Anderson MS (1994) Ethical problems in academic research. Am Sci 81:542–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (2000, September–October) Human gene therapy—harsh lessons, high hopes. FDA Consumer 34(5):12–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston G (1998, March 27) Economic research shows that higher education is not just another business. Chronicle Higher Education, p B6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana State University, Terre Haute, USA

    Joshua B. Powers

Authors
  1. Joshua B. Powers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua B. Powers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China

    Qi Li

  2. College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA

    Cynthia Gerstl-Pepin

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation