Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 203–219

Intellectual property and the commercialization of research and development



Concern about the commercialization of research is rising, notably in testing new drugs. The problem involves oversimplified, polarizing assumptions about research and development (R&D) and intellectual property (IP). To address this problem this paper sets forth a more complex three phase RT&D process, involving Scientific Research (R), Technological Innovation (T), and Commercial Product Development (D) or the RT&D process. Scientific research and innovation testing involve costly intellectual work and do not produce free goods, but rather require IP regulation. RT&D processes involve an unrecognized IP shift from a common IP right in public goods like information and knowledge to private IP in products and other hard assets. The question then is, what kind of IP right: private or common? Since scientific research and innovation testing require openness about adverse findings, and wide, low cost diffusion of results, they require a common, inclusive IP right. Common IP is appropriate to both sharing knowledge goods and recovering the cost of production. Research is furthermore compatible with commercialization and support by other social interests. On the other hand it is incompatible with the exclusionary private IP rights that permit restrictive publication or total suppression of information. Private IP rather than commercialization conflicts with the openness requirements of scientific research and innovation testing. Commercial funding, however, is in principle compatible with research and testing, especially when regulated by a common IP right. This reflects a pragmatic view of the fundamental interconnections of knowledge and other social interests.


Intellectual Property Research and Development / R&D Commercialization Science Technological Innovation Intellectual Capital Pragmatism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nathan, D., Weatherall, D. (2002) Academic freedom in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 247: 1370.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seely Brown, J., Duguid, P. (2001) The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, Mass: 150.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson, J., Baird, P., Downie, J. (2001) The Olivieri Report: the Complete Text of the Report of the Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the CAUT. Lorimer, Toronto.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olivieri, Nancy F. (2003) Patients’ health or company profits? the commercialization of academic research. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (1): 29–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weatherall, D. (2000) Academia and industry: increasingly uneasy bedfellows. The Lancet. 355: 1574.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    di Norcia, V. (2002a) Diverse Knowledges, Competing Interests: An Essay on Socio-Technical Problem-Solving. Science and Engineering Ethics. 8: 83–98.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freeman, C. (1986) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buderi, R. (2000) Engines of Tomorrow. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Henley, P. (1998) Introduction. In: Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Henley, P., eds. Capitalizing Knowledge. SUNY, Albany, NY: 1–20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhn, T. (1963) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garte, S. J. (1995) Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 59–70.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myhrvold, N. (1998) Supporting science. Science 282: 621–22.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lonergan, B. (1958) Insight, A Study of Human Understanding. Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    La Montagne, J. R. (2001) Biotechnology and research: promise and problem. The Lancet 358: 1723–24.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schon, D. (1963) The Displacement of Concepts. Tavistock, London: Chapter 1.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown, R. (2001) Who Rules in Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freeman, C., Soete, L. (1997) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. 3rd ed. Pinter, London.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    White, C. (2002) New guidance issued on promoting integrity in scientific research. British Medical Journal 325: 182.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    In Gibbs, W. W. (1996) The price of silence. Scientific American. 271, November: 10–12.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearn, J. (1995) Publication, an ethical imperative. British Medical Journal 310: 131–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bird, S., Housman, D. E. (1995) Trust and the collection, selection, analysis and interpretation of data: a scientist’s view. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 371–82.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott, P. (2003) The ethical implications of the new research paradigm. Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 73–84.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kennedy, D. (2000) Secrecy and science. Science 289: 724.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Munthe, C., Welin, S. (1996) The morality of scientific openness. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 411–428.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shore, E. G. (1995) Effectiveness of research guidelines in the prevention of scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 383–87Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deyo, R. A., Psaty, G., Simon, G., Wagner, E., Omen, G.S. (1997) The messenger under attack. New England Journal of Medicine 336: 1776–80.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huth, E. J. (1996) Conflicts of interest in industry-funded research. In Bleidt B. and Montagne, M., eds. Clinical Research In Pharmaceutical Development. Marcel Dekker, New York: 389–405.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Healy, D. (2003) In the grip of the python: conflicts at the university-industry interface. Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 59–72.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mahler, J. (2004) The Anti-depressant dilemma. The New York Times Magazine. Nov. 21: 59–65, 100.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wise, J. (1997) Research suppressed for seven years by drug company. British Medical Journal 314: 1145.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kassirer, J. (2001) Financial conflicts of interest: an unresolved ethical frontier. American Journal of Law & Medicine 27: 149–62.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stelfox, H. T., Chau, G., O’Rourke, K., Detsky, A. (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. New England Journal of Medicine 338: 101–08.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pfeffer, J. (1994) The costs of legalization. In Sitkin, S. B., Bies, R.J., eds. (1994) The Legalistic Organization.. Sage, California: 346–58.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kennedy, D. (2003) Forensic science: oxymoron? Science. 302: 1625.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huber, P. W. (1991) Galileo’s Revenge, Junk Science in the Court Room. Harper, New York.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Anonymous. (1998) Supreme court clarifies junk science stance. Science 279: 35.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kennedy, D. (2004) Science, law and the IBM case. Science 305: 309.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Murr, A. (2001) A dentist takes the stand. Newsweek. 20 August; from Scholar
  39. 39.
    Levy, S. (1984) Hackers, Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Borsook, P. (2000) Cyberselfish. Public Affairs, New York.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    di Norcia, V. (1998) Hard Like Water — Ethics in Business. Oxford University Press, Toronto: Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pollard, T. D. MD. (2002) The future of biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 1725–27.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bumol, T. F., MD, Watanabe, A. M., MD. (2001) Genetic information, genomic technologies, and the future of drug discovery. Journal of the American Medical Association 285: 551–55.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rowen, L., Wong, G.K.S., Lane, R.P., Hood, L. (2000) Publication rights in the era of open data release policies. Science 289: 1881.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gelijns, C., PhD, Thier, MD, S.O. (2002) Medical innovation and institutional independence. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 72–77.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Monbiot, G. (2003) Guard dogs of perception: the corporate takeover of science. Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 49–58.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bero, L. A. (1999) Accepting commercial sponsorhip. British Medical Journal 319: 653–4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    di Norcia, V. (1990) Communications, power and time. Canadian Journal of Political Science XIII: 336–57.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Malakoff, D. (2003) U.S. court opens door to free trade in ideas. Science 301: 1643.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M.C. (2003) University licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act. Science 301: 1052.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lessig, L. (2001) The Future of Ideas. Random House.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 30fGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    di Norcia, V. (1987) The hard problem of management is freedom, not the commons. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 6: 57–71.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dahlman, C. (1980) The Open Field System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rowland, W. (1999) The Spirit of the Web. Key Porter, Toronto.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    di Norcia, V. (2002b) The knowledge economy and moral community. Journal of Business Ethics 38: 167–77.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Berners-Lee, T. (1999) Weaving the Web. Harper, New York.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stefik, M., ed. (1996) Internet Dreams. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stewart, T. E. (1997) Intellectual Capital — The New Wealth of Organizations. Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Malakoff, D. (2004) Most academics eschewing patents. Science 303: 1757.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ducor, P. (2000) Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289: 873–75.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Benkler, Y. (2004). Commons-based strategies and the problems of patents. Science 305: 1110–11.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dyson, E. (1997) Release 2.0. Broadway, New York.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Winner, L. (1977) Autonomous Technology, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ellul, J. (1964) The Technological Society. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Petroski, H. (1994) The Evolution of Useful Things, Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Homer-Dixon, T. (2000). The Ingenuity Gap. Knopf, Toronto.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind. Basic, New York.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    di Norcia, V. (1994) Ethics, technology development and innovation. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 235–52.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    di Norcia, V. (2002c) Technological complexity and ethical control. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 21: 33–39.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Martin, J. (2000) The idea is more important than the experiment. Lancet 356: 934–37.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PhRMA). (2002) Pharmaceutical Industry Profile. Available at Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hopkins-Tanne, J. (2000) US faces ethical issues after gene therapy death. British Medical Journal 320: 602.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Waldrop, M. (2001) The Dream Machine. Penguin, New York: 377f, 427Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Atkinson, R.C., Beachy, R. N., Conway, G., Cordova, F. A., Fox, M. A., Holbrook, J. A., Klessig, D. F. McCormick, R. L., McPherson, P. M., Rawlings, III, H. R., Rapson, R., Vanderhoef, L. N., Wiley, J. D., Young, C. E. (2003) Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management. Science 301: 174–5.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Malakoff, D. (2004) NIH roils academe with advice on licensing DNA patents. Science 303: 1757–58.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Marshall, E. (2000a) A deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research. Science 288: 255–57.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cyranoski, D. W. (2003) This protein belongs to... Nature 426: 10–11.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Marshall, E. (2000b) NIH cuts deal on use of Oncomouse. Science 287: 567.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Vallance, P. (2001) Biotechnology and new companies arising from academia. The Lancet 358: 1804.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Arthur, B. W. (1994) Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rowland, W. (1999) The Spirit of the Web. Key Porter, Toronto: Chapter 10.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Buderi, R. (2000) Corporate R&D scorecard. Technology Review 103 (6): 99–102.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zacks, R. (2000) The TR university research scorecard. Technology Review 103 (4): 88–93.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. (1998) Entrepreneurial science: the second academic revolution. In: Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Henley, P., eds. Capitalizing Knowledge. SUNY, Albany, NY: 21–46.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fontanarosa, P. B., MD, De Angelis, C., MD, MPH. (2001) Basic science and translational research. Journal of the American Medical Association 286: 89–91.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    NIH (2000) Clinical A Service of the NIH. Accessed at http//Clinical Scholar
  88. 88.
    Press, E, Washburn, J. (March 2000) The kept university. Atlantic Monthly: 39–54.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Martin, J., Kasper, D. L. (2000) In whose best interest-breaching the academic industrial wall. New England Journal of Medicine 343: 1646–49.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., Fields, K. K., Bennett, C. L., Adams, J. R., Kuderer, N.M., Lyman, G. H. (2000) The uncertainty principle and industry sponsored research. The Lancet 356: 635–38.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Evans, G. R., Packham, D.E. (2003) Ethical issues at the university-industry interface: a way forward? Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 3–16.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Malmesbury, J. J. (2000) CSM attacked over delay in reducing secrecy. British Medical Journal 321: 135.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Larkin, M. (1999) Whose article is it anyway? The Lancet 354: 136–40.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kjaergard, L.L., Als-Nielsen, B. (2002) Association between competing interests and authors conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. British Medical Journal 325: 249–252.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mann, H. (2002; Aug. 3). Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results. The Lancet. 359: 406–8.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rennie, D. (2000) Pharmo-economic analyses: making them transparent. Journal of the American Medical Association 283: 2158–60.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Editorial. (2002) Drug marketing: unsafe at any dose? Canadian Medical Association Journal 167: 981.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ferriman, A. (1999) Drug companies criticised for exaggeration. British Medical Journal 318: 962.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Editorial. (2002b) Just how tainted has medicine become? The Lancet 359: 1167Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. The Lancet 358: 854–56.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rhodes, R. (1986) The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Touchstone, New York.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kurt, T. L. (1996) Research regulation of government scientists’ conflicts of interest. In Bleidt B. and Montagne, M. eds. Clinical Research In Pharmaceutical Development. Marcel Dekker, New York: 377–89.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Etzkowitz, H. (2001) The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 20 (2) 18–29.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Moses, H., MD, Braunwald, E., Martin, J. B., Thier, S. O. (2002) Collaborating with industry — choices for the academic medical center. New England Journal of Medicine 347: 1371–75.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Martin, J., Kasper, D. L. (2000) In whose best interest-breaching the academic industrial wall. New England Journal of Medicine 343: 1646–49.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Webster, A., Etzkowitz, H. (1998) Toward a theoretical analysis of academic-industry collaboration. In: Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Henley, P., eds. Capitalizing Knowledge. SUNY, Albany, NY: 60–66.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lewis, M. (2000) The New New Thing. Norton, New York: pp. 81f, 113f.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Bodenheimer, T. (2000) Uneasy alliance—clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine. 342: 1539–44.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Nelsen, L. (1997) The rise of intellectual property protection in the American university. Science 279: 1460.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kopp, C. (2002) What is a truly innovative drug? Canadian Family Physician 48: 1413–15.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Zehr, L. (2002) Generic firms seen reaping windfall. The Globe and Mail, Toronto. 29 November: B1, B6.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Petersen, M. (2002) Madison Ave. plays growing role in drug research. New York Times. 22 November: 1. Accessed at Scholar
  113. 113.
    Christensen, C. M. (2000) The Innovator’s Dilemma-When New Technologies cause Great Firms to fail.. Harperbusiness, New York.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Jardine, L. (1999) Ingenious Pursuits- Building the Scientific Revolution. Doubleday, New York: 7f.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Peirce, C. S. (1960) What pragmatism is. In: Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P. eds. Charles Sanders Peirce. Collected Papers, Cambridge, Mass: 5: 272–92.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Habermas, J. (1971) Knowledge And Human Interests. Beacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Darwin, C. (1981) The Descent of Man. Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SudburyBarrieCanada

Personalised recommendations