Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 491–504 | Cite as

Patenting and the Gender Gap: Should Women Be Encouraged to Patent More?



The commercialization of academic science has come to be understood as economically desirable for institutions, individual researchers, and the public. Not surprisingly, commercial activity, particularly that which results from patenting, appears to be producing changes in the standards used to evaluate scientists’ performance and contributions. In this context, concerns about a gender gap in patenting activity have arisen and some have argued for the need to encourage women to seek more patents. They believe that because academic advancement is mainly dependent on productivity (Stuart and Ding in American Journal of Sociology 112:97–144, 2006; Azoulay et al. in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63:599–623, 2007), differences in research output have the power to negatively impact women’s careers. Moreover, in the case of patenting activity, they claim that the gender gap also has the potential to negatively affect society. This is so because scientific and technological advancement and innovation play a crucial role in contemporary societies. Thus, women’s more limited involvement in the commercialization of science and technology can also be detrimental to innovation itself. Nevertheless, calls to encourage women to patent on grounds that such activity is likely to play a significant role in the betterment of both women’s careers and society seem to be based on two problematic assumptions: (1) that the methods to determine women’s productivity in patenting activities are an appropriate way to measure their research efforts and the impact of their work, and (2) that patenting, particularly in academia, benefits society. The purpose of this paper is to call into question these two assumptions.


Gender-gap Patenting Commercialization of science 


  1. Angell, M. (2000). Is academic medicine for sale? New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1516–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it? New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 599–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman, E. (2008). Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to the Bayh-Dole act. Social Studies of Science, 38, 835–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bethony, J. M., Cole, R. N., Guo, X., Kamhawi, S., Lightowlers, M. W., Loukas, A., et al. (2011). Vaccines to combat the neglected tropical diseases. Immunological Reviews, 239, 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhandari, M., Busse, J. W., Jackowski, D., Montori, V. M., Schunemann, H., Sprague, S., et al. (2004). Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 477–480.Google Scholar
  7. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., et al. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine, 81, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braisher, T. L., Symonds, M. R. E., & Gemmell, N. J. (2005). Publication success in nature and science is not gender dependent. Bioessays, 27, 858–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brody, B. (2006). Intellectual property and biotechnology: The US internal experience—Part I. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 16, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brody, H. (2007). Hooked: Ethics, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical industry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  11. Burrelli, J. (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Butcher, J. (2011). Women in science and medicine. Lancet, 377, 811–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, E. G., & Bendavid, E. (2003). Data-sharing and data-withholding in genetics and the life sciences: Results of a national survey of technology transfer officers. Journal of Health Care Law & Policy, 6, 241–255.Google Scholar
  14. Carnes, M., Morrissey, C., & Geller, S. E. (2008). Women’s health and women’s leadership in academic medicine: Hitting the same glass ceiling? Journal of Women’s Health, 17, 1453–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 3157–3162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, J., Dibner, M. S., & Wilson, A. (2010). Development of and access to products for neglected diseases. PLoS One, 5, e10610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colagiuri, R., Colagiuri, S., Yach, D., & Pramming, S. (2006). The answer to diabetes prevention: Science, surgery, service delivery, or social policy? American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1562–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colyvas, J., & Powell, W. (2007). From vulnerable to venerated: The institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 25, 210–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Currat, L. J., de Francisco, A., Al-Tuwaijri, S., Ghaffar, A., & Jupp, S. (2004). 10/90 Report on health research 2003–2004. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.Google Scholar
  20. de Melo-Martin, I., & Intemann, K. (2009). How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. FASEB Journal, 23, 1638–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313, 665–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2009). She figures 2009: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  23. Fabrizio, K. (2007). University patenting and the pace of industrial innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 505–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fabrizio, K., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fox, M. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frietsch, R., Haller, I., Funken-Vrohlings, M., & Grupp, H. (2009). Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy, 38, 590–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garber, K. (2006). Biomedical patents: Broad patent faces narrow odds in court battle. Science, 311(5769), 1855–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geiger, R. L., & Sá, C. M. (2008). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 607–632.Google Scholar
  30. Gold, E. R., Kaplan, W., Orbinski, J., Harland-Logan, S., & N-Marandi, S. (2010). Are patents impeding medical care and innovation? Plos Medicine, 7(1), e1000208.Google Scholar
  31. Grushcow, J. (2004). Measuring secrecy: A cost of the patent system revealed. Journal of Legal Studies, 33(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  33. Hamad, B. (2010). The antibiotics market. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 9, 675–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heckenberg, A., & Druml, C. (2010). Gender aspects in medical publication—The Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holman, C. (2006). Clearing a path through the patent thicket. Cell, 125(4), 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hotez, P. J., & Brown, A. S. (2009). Neglected tropical disease vaccines. Biologicals, 37, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science, 40, 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y. C., Starr, R., et al. (2006). The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature: A 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 355, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jagsi, R., Tarbell, N. J., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y. C., & Hylek, E. M. (2008). The representation of women on the editorial boards of major medical journals: A 35-year perspective. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 544–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen, P. H., & Webster, E. (2011). The effects of patents on scientific inquiry. Australian Economic Review, 44, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaufman, R. R., & Chevan, J. (2011). The gender gap in peer-reviewed publications by physical therapy faculty members: A productivity puzzle. Physical Therapy, 91, 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khan, S. N., Mermer, M. J., Myers, E., & Sandhu, H. S. (2008). The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature. American Journal of Orthopedics, 37, E205–E212.; Discussion E12.Google Scholar
  46. Kieff, F. (2001). Facilitating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science—A response to Rai and Eisenberg. Northwestern University Law Review, 95, 691–705.Google Scholar
  47. Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kleinman, D., & Vallas, S. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30, 451–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kresse, H., Belsey, M. J., & Rovini, H. (2007). The antibacterial drugs market. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 6, 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  51. Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40, 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lave, R., Mirowski, P., & Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science, 40, 659–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20, 754–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lemley, M. A. (2008). Are universities patent trolls? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 611–631.Google Scholar
  55. Loewenberg, S. (2009). The Bayh-Dole act: A model for promoting research translation? Molecular Oncology, 3, 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Loise, V., & Stevens, A. J. (2010). The Bayh-Dole act turns 30. Science Translational Medicine, 2, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex-differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71, 159–178.Google Scholar
  58. Loscalzo, J. (2011). Can scientific quality be quantified? Circulation, 147(35), 947–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Macdonald, A. L. (1992). Feminine ingenuity: Women and invention in America. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  60. Mayer, S. (2006). Declaration of patent applications as financial interests: A survey of practice among authors of papers on molecular biology in nature. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(11), 658–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McMillan, G. S. (2009). Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry. Scientometrics, 80, 683–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Morton, M. J., & Sonnad, S. S. (2007). Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99, 764–771.Google Scholar
  65. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy, 31, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Murray, F., & Graham, L. (2007). Buying science and selling science: Gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. National Science Foundation. (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  69. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nkansah, N., Nguyen, T., Iraninezhad, H., & Bero, L. (2009). Randomized trials assessing calcium supplementation in healthy children: Relationship between industry sponsorship and study outcomes. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 1931–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Noskin, G. A., Rubin, R. J., Schentag, J. J., Kluytmans, J., Hedblom, E. C., Jacobson, C., et al. (2007). National trends in Staphylococcus aureus infection rates: Impact on economic burden and mortality over a 6-year period (1998–2003). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45, 1132–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Penas, C. S., & Willett, P. (2006). Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 32, 480–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Penin, J. (2010). On the consequences of patenting university research: Lessons from a survey of French academic inventors. Industry and Innovation, 17, 445–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rafferty, M. (2008). The Bayh-Dole act and university research and development. Research Policy, 37, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rai, A. (1999). Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwestern University Law Review, 94(1), 77–152.Google Scholar
  78. Rasmussen, N. (2002). Of ‘small men’, big science and bigger business: The second world war and biomedical research in the United States. Minerva, 40, 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reed, D. A., Enders, F., Lindor, R., McClees, M., & Lindor, K. D. (2011). Gender differences in academic productivity and leadership appointments of physicians throughout academic careers. Academic Medicine, 86, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rhoten, D., & Powell, W. (2007). The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection versus new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ridker, P. M., & Torres, J. (2006). Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000–2005. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 2270–2274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Robinson, S., Lecky, F., & Mason, S. (2010). Editorial boards: Where are all the women? European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17, 61–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosser, S. (2009). The gender gap in patenting: Is technology transfer a feminist issue? NWSA Journal, 21, 65–84.Google Scholar
  84. Sampat, B. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the twentieth century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35, 772–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sampat, B. N. (2010). Lessons from Bayh-Dole. Nature, 468, 755–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schnittker, J., & Karandinos, G. (2010). Methuselah’s medicine: Pharmaceutical innovation and mortality in the United States, 1960–2000. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 961–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schrager, S., Bouwkamp, C., & Mundt, M. (2011). Gender and first authorship of papers in family medicine journals 2006–2008. Family Medicine, 43, 155–159.Google Scholar
  88. Seltzer, S. E., Menard, A., Cruea, R., & Arenson, R. (2010). “Hyperscrutiny” of academic-industrial relationships: Potential for unintended consequences—A response. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 7, 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sidhu, R., Rajashekhar, P., Lavin, V. L., Parry, J., Attwood, J., Holdcroft, A., et al. (2009). The gender imbalance in academic medicine: A study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 102, 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Siepmann, T. (2004). The global exportation of the US Bayh-Dole act. University of Dayton Law Review, 30(2), 209–243.Google Scholar
  91. Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Smith, C. D., & MacFadyen, B. (2010). Industry relationships between physicians and professional medical associations: Corrupt or essential? Surgical Endoscopy, 24, 251–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. So, A., Sampat, B., Rai, A., Cook-Deegan, R., Reichman, J., Weissman, R., et al. (2008). Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. Plos Biology, 6(10), e262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sterckx, S. (2011). Patenting and licensing of university research: Promoting innovation or undermining academic values? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). The social structural determinants of academic entrepreneurship: An analysis of university scientists’ participation in commercial ventures. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Symonds, M. R. E., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L., & Elgar, M. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: Towards an unbiased metric of research performance. Plos One, 1(1), e127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Thimmesh, C., & Sweet, M. (2000). Girls think of everything: Stories of ingenious inventions by women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  100. Vallas, S., & Kleinman, D. (2007). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Van Overwalle, G. (2010). Turning patent swords into shares. Science, 330(6011), 1630–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Whittington, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008). Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society, 22, 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Yach, D., Hawkes, C., Gould, C. L., & Hofman, K. J. (2004). The global burden of chronic diseases: Overcoming impediments to prevention and control. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2616–2622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zhuge, Y., Kaufman, J., Simeone, D. M., Chen, H., & Velazquez, O. C. (2011). Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery? Annals of Surgery, 253, 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zycher, B., Di Masi, J., & Milne, C. (2010). Private sector contributions to pharmaceutical science: Thirty-five summary case histories. American Journal of Therapeutics, 17, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health, Division of Medical EthicsWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations