Skip to main content

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

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 19, pages 491–504 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Of course, to the extent that number of patents is used to evaluate scientists’ careers, this would be a matter of concern. But it seems that the appropriate response in this case would be to eliminate this criterion rather than to simply accept it and encourage women to patent more.

References

  • Angell, M. (2000). Is academic medicine for sale? New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1516–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 599–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, B. (2006). Intellectual property and biotechnology: The US internal experience—Part I. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 16, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, H. (2007). Hooked: Ethics, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical industry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrelli, J. (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. (2011). Women in science and medicine. Lancet, 377, 811–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Dibner, M. S., & Wilson, A. (2010). Development of and access to products for neglected diseases. PLoS One, 5, e10610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • de Melo-Martin, I., & Intemann, K. (2009). How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. FASEB Journal, 23, 1638–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313, 665–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). She figures 2009: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. (2007). University patenting and the pace of industrial innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 505–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, R., Haller, I., Funken-Vrohlings, M., & Grupp, H. (2009). Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy, 38, 590–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, K. (2006). Biomedical patents: Broad patent faces narrow odds in court battle. Science, 311(5769), 1855–1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Grushcow, J. (2004). Measuring secrecy: A cost of the patent system revealed. Journal of Legal Studies, 33(1), 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamad, B. (2010). The antibiotics market. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 9, 675–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckenberg, A., & Druml, C. (2010). Gender aspects in medical publication—The Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122, 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, C. (2006). Clearing a path through the patent thicket. Cell, 125(4), 629–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotez, P. J., & Brown, A. S. (2009). Neglected tropical disease vaccines. Biologicals, 37, 160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science, 40, 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P. H., & Webster, E. (2011). The effects of patents on scientific inquiry. Australian Economic Review, 44, 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 167–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kresse, H., Belsey, M. J., & Rovini, H. (2007). The antibacterial drugs market. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 6, 19–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40, 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, R., Mirowski, P., & Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science, 40, 659–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20, 754–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. A. (2008). Are universities patent trolls? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 611–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenberg, S. (2009). The Bayh-Dole act: A model for promoting research translation? Molecular Oncology, 3, 91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loise, V., & Stevens, A. J. (2010). The Bayh-Dole act turns 30. Science Translational Medicine, 2, 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex-differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71, 159–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loscalzo, J. (2011). Can scientific quality be quantified? Circulation, 147(35), 947–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, A. L. (1992). Feminine ingenuity: Women and invention in America. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S. (2009). Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the US biotechnology industry. Scientometrics, 80, 683–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penin, J. (2010). On the consequences of patenting university research: Lessons from a survey of French academic inventors. Industry and Innovation, 17, 445–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55, 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty, M. (2008). The Bayh-Dole act and university research and development. Research Policy, 37, 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, A. (1999). Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwestern University Law Review, 94(1), 77–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S., Lecky, F., & Mason, S. (2010). Editorial boards: Where are all the women? European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17, 61–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. (2009). The gender gap in patenting: Is technology transfer a feminist issue? NWSA Journal, 21, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the twentieth century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35, 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N. (2010). Lessons from Bayh-Dole. Nature, 468, 755–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siepmann, T. (2004). The global exportation of the US Bayh-Dole act. University of Dayton Law Review, 30(2), 209–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29, 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. D., & MacFadyen, B. (2010). Industry relationships between physicians and professional medical associations: Corrupt or essential? Surgical Endoscopy, 24, 251–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx, S. (2011). Patenting and licensing of university research: Promoting innovation or undermining academic values? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thimmesh, C., & Sweet, M. (2000). Girls think of everything: Stories of ingenious inventions by women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallas, S., & Kleinman, D. (2007). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6, 283–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, G. (2010). Turning patent swords into shares. Science, 330(6011), 1630–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2008). Women inventors in context: Disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society, 22, 194–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, 402 E. 67th Street, LA-211, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Inmaculada de Melo-Martín

Authors
  1. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inmaculada de Melo-Martín.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Melo-Martín, I. Patenting and the Gender Gap: Should Women Be Encouraged to Patent More?. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 491–504 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9344-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9344-5

Keywords

  • Gender-gap
  • Patenting
  • Commercialization of science