Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 261–281 | Cite as

From a Means to an End: Patenting in the 1999 Danish ‘Act on Inventions’ and its Effect on Research Practice

  • Nadja Sejersen
  • Janus Hansen
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the potential pitfalls for academic research associated with goal displacements in the implementation of goals and indicators of research commercialization. We ask why patenting has come to serve as the key policy indicator of innovative capacity and what consequences this has for the organization of academic research. To address these questions, the paper presents a case study from Denmark on, firstly, why and how the 1999 Danish ‘Act on Inventions’ introduced patenting as a central instrument to Danish science policy and, secondly, the effects the Act has had on Danish university organization and research practices. We trace why and how commercialization was introduced as an important objective in Danish science policy since the 1980s. The increased focus on patents is explained as an isomorphic adjustment to an international ‘science policy field,’ manifested in particular through OECD statistics, where patenting has come to serve as a key metric in international rankings. In a second step, we examine what effects the patenting requirements have had on organization and research practice at a Danish university. We show that in practice ‘number of patents’ changed from serving as an indicator of innovative capacity to being a policy goal in itself, thus in effect producing a goal displacement that is potentially damaging for both academic research and innovation capacity of the surrounding society. As a consequence of this goal displacement, active scientists now increasingly engage in patenting primarily as a means to fulfill organizational targets and to increase their ‘fundability,’ rather than to promote commercial applications of their research. In conclusion, we discuss how these unfulfilled policy ambitions have led to a retrospective redefinition of policy goals rather than an adjustment of the actual policy tools.

Keywords

Patenting Commercialization of research Intellectual property rights (IPR) Science policy Goal displacement Isomorphism University performance contracts OECD Denmark 

References

  1. Asheim, Bjorn Terje, and Lars Coenen. 2005. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy 34(8): 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldini, Nicola. 2009. Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy 38(8): 1217–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckert, Jens. 2010. Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change. Sociological Theory 28(2): 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DEA. 2013. Fra forskning til faktura – hvad kan vi lære af ti års forsøg på at tjene penge på forskning? Copenhagen. https://dea.nu/sites/dea.nu/files/Web_Fra%20forskning%20til%20faktura%202_0.pdf. Accessed May 2015.
  5. DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edgerton, David. 2004. ‘The linear model’ did not exist: Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century. In The Science–Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications, eds. Karl Grandin, and Nina Wormbs, 31–58. New York: Watson.Google Scholar
  7. Etzkowitz, Henry. 2011. The triple helix: Science, technology and the entrepreneurial spirit. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China 3(2): 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frickel, Scott, and Kelly Moore. 2006. The New Political Sociology of Science Institutions, Networks, and Power. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Geuna, Aldo, and Lionel J.J. Nesta. 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35(6): 790–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geuna, Aldo, and Federica Rossi. 2011. Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy 40(8): 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grimaldi, Rosa, Martin Kenney, Donald Siegel, and Mike Wright. 2011. 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40(8): 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Innovation, S. f. F. o.. 2014. Kommercialisering af forskningsresultater 2014 - og kortlægning af vidensamspil i bredere perspektiv. Copenhagen, Styrelsen for Forskning og Innovation. file:///Users/christian/Desktop/DE-Vidensamarbejde-under-lup-2014.pdf. Accessed May 1 2015.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, Mark Peter. 2009. Entrepreneurial Science: The Rules of the Game. Social Studies of Science 39(6): 821–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model. Research Policy 38(9): 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langford, Cooper Harald, Jeremy Hall, Peter Josty, Stelvia Matos, and Astrid Jacobson. 2006. Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy 35(10): 1586–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lissoni, Francesco. 2012. Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information 34(3): 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mejlgaard, Niels, and Kaare Aagaard. 2009. Hvilken slags politik er forskningspolitik - nu? Økonomi og Politik 82(2): 50–66.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, John Wilfred, and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Molas-Gallart, Jordi, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2007. Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators. Research Evaluation 16(4): 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD 1996. The knowledge-based economy. The Organisation of Economic Development and Collaboration. Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Pedersen, Ove Kaj. 2006. Corporatism and Beyond: The Negotiated Economy. National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism. In The Danish Experience, eds. John Campbell, John Hall, and Ove Kaj Pedersen, 245–270. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Powell, Walter, Jason Owen-Smith, and Jeannette Anastasia Colyvas. 2007. Innovation and Emulation: Lessons from American Universities in Selling Private Rights to Public Knowledge. Minerva 45(2): 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rossi, Federica, and Ainurul Rosli. 2015. Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Studies in Higher Education 40(10): 1970–1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2016. Saving Science. The New Atlantis (Spring/Summer 2016): 5–40.Google Scholar
  26. Soerensen, Henning. 1999. Demands on and Expectations from Research Evaluations, from the Macro to the Micro level. In Science Evaluation and Its Management, eds. Václav Pačes, Ladislav Pivec, and Albert H. Teich, 51–59. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  27. Thursby, Jerry, and Marie Thursby. 2011. Has the Bayh-Dole Act Compromised Basic Research? Research Policy 40(8): 1077–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. University of Copenhagen. 2012. Strengthening Collaboration Worldwide http://rektorat.ku.dk/strategi/KU_strategy_collaboration_private_enterpriseMAY12_1_.pdf/ Accessed May 2015.
  29. University of Copenhagen. 2015. About the division http://fi.ku.dk/english/about_fi/ Accessed June 2 2015.
  30. University of Copenhagen. 2016. Commercialisation http://business.ku.dk/commercialisation Accessed October 30 2017.
  31. Valdivia, Walter D. 2011. The Stakes in Bayh-Dole: Public Values Beyond the Pace of Innovation. Minerva 49(1): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vallas, Steven Peter, and Daniel Lee Kleinman. 2007. Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwl035.Google Scholar
  33. Winickoff, David. 2013. Private Assets, Public Mission: The Politics of Technology Transfer and the New American University. Jurimetrics 54(1): 42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations