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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Public Research Commercialization Survey—2014
Source: Public Research Commercialization Survey—2014
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The UK was a European frontrunner with The Patent Act in 1977 and has continued institutional IPR ownership (Geuna et al. 2011).
1987 and 1994 OECD evaluation reports of the Danish research system.
The 1995 Report on Research Counseling, White Paper on a National Research Strategy 1995, Research A Broad Concern 1997, The National Research Strategy 1997, National Research for Materials Research 1999.
The Act on Inventions 1st reading December 1st 1998, 2nd reading May 18 1999, 3rd reading May 25 1999.
Former civil servant 1, Expert interview (1) conducted June 29 2016
Former civil servant 2, Expert interview (2) conducted June 2 2016
Former consultant to the Danish Government, Expert interview (3) conducted June 28 2016.
Scientist Interview 1, Biology, University of Copenhagen, 40–50, male, conducted May 26 2015; Scientist Interview 2, Physics, University of Copenhagen, 30–40, male, conducted May 28 2015; Scientist Interview 3, Chemistry/biology, University of Copenhagen, 50-60, male, June 2nd 2015; Scientist Interview 4, Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 30–40, male, June 4 2015.
“The purpose of this bill reflects the need to enhance knowledge-based growth in Danish society. Public research institutions are substantial sources of production of new knowledge and knowledge transfer between science and industry is of uttermost importance to maintain and develop the Danish position as a modern welfare state” (Bill on Inventions at Public Research Institutions 1998, own translation).
During the writing of this paper, the division has been renamed to ‘Business Collaboration,’ signaling the changed demands on universities analyzed here even clearer.
One may speculate that the continued focus on patenting may also suggest a disproportionate policy influence of a few very large Danish pharmaceutical and bio-tech companies for whom patenting IS important compared to other industries. This, however, falls outside the scope of the present inquiry.
References
Asheim, Bjorn Terje, and Lars Coenen. 2005. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy 34(8): 1173–1190.
Baldini, Nicola. 2009. Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy 38(8): 1217–1224.
Beckert, Jens. 2010. Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change. Sociological Theory 28(2): 150–166.
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.
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.
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.
Etzkowitz, Henry. 2011. The triple helix: Science, technology and the entrepreneurial spirit. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China 3(2): 76–90.
Frickel, Scott, and Kelly Moore. 2006. The New Political Sociology of Science Institutions, Networks, and Power. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
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.
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.
Grimaldi, Rosa, Martin Kenney, Donald Siegel, and Mike Wright. 2011. 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40(8): 1045–1057.
Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.
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.
Jones, Mark Peter. 2009. Entrepreneurial Science: The Rules of the Game. Social Studies of Science 39(6): 821–851.
Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model. Research Policy 38(9): 1407–1422.
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.
Lissoni, Francesco. 2012. Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information 34(3): 197–205.
Mejlgaard, Niels, and Kaare Aagaard. 2009. Hvilken slags politik er forskningspolitik - nu? Økonomi og Politik 82(2): 50–66.
Meyer, John Wilfred, and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.
Molas-Gallart, Jordi, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2007. Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators. Research Evaluation 16(4): 321–330.
OECD 1996. The knowledge-based economy. The Organisation of Economic Development and Collaboration. Paris.
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.
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.
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.
Sarewitz, Daniel. 2016. Saving Science. The New Atlantis (Spring/Summer 2016): 5–40.
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.
Thursby, Jerry, and Marie Thursby. 2011. Has the Bayh-Dole Act Compromised Basic Research? Research Policy 40(8): 1077–1083.
University of Copenhagen. 2012. Strengthening Collaboration Worldwide http://rektorat.ku.dk/strategi/KU_strategy_collaboration_private_enterpriseMAY12_1_.pdf/ Accessed May 2015.
University of Copenhagen. 2015. About the division http://fi.ku.dk/english/about_fi/ Accessed June 2 2015.
University of Copenhagen. 2016. Commercialisation http://business.ku.dk/commercialisation Accessed October 30 2017.
Valdivia, Walter D. 2011. The Stakes in Bayh-Dole: Public Values Beyond the Pace of Innovation. Minerva 49(1): 25–46.
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.
Winickoff, David. 2013. Private Assets, Public Mission: The Politics of Technology Transfer and the New American University. Jurimetrics 54(1): 42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sejersen, N., Hansen, J. From a Means to an End: Patenting in the 1999 Danish ‘Act on Inventions’ and its Effect on Research Practice. Minerva 56, 261–281 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9336-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9336-y