How Will Open Science Impact on University/Industry Collaborations?

  • Joanna ChatawayEmail author
  • Sarah Parks
  • Elta Smith
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)


Open science represents a challenge to traditional modes of scientific practice and collaboration. Knowledge exchange is still heavily influenced by researchers ambition to publish in highly cited journals and within ‘closed partnerships’ (Holmes, Nature 533: 54, 2016) where interactions are based on patenting based on IPR. However, perceived inefficiencies, a desire to make publically funded research available to all and a crisis of confidence in the quality of research published in top journals all serve to fuel demands for more openness in the conduct of science and the exchange of scientific knowledge. Whilst there is a strong logic behind the contention that increased openness will promote efficiencies, quality and fairness, there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact on university/industry collaboration and the balance that needs to be struck between open and closed approaches. Policy obstacles are also likely to impede the pace of change.


Open science IPR University-industry collaboration Science Technology and innovation policy 


  1. Aarts AA, Anderson JE, Anderson CJ et al (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716. Scholar
  2. Archambault E, Amyot D, Deschamps P, Nicol A, Rebout L, Roberge G (2013) Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004–2011. ScienceMetrix for European Commission DG Research & Innovation, Brussels. As of 19 August 2014:
  3. Arora A, Athreye S (2012) Patent incentives: returns to patenting and the inducement for research & development. Intellectual Property Office research paper no. 2012/20, November 2012Google Scholar
  4. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubela T, Gold ER, Graff GD, Cahoy DR, Nicol D, Castle D (2013) Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: toward consistent and transparent practices. Nat Biotechnol 31(3):202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burk D, Lemley M (2009) The patent crisis and how the courts can solve it. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers I, Glazsiou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis PA, Oliver S (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383(9912):156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chataway J, Smith J (2007) Shaping scientific excellence in agricultural research. International J Biotechnol 9(2):172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chataway J, Hanlin R, Mugwagwa J, Muraguri L (2010) Global health social technologies: reflections on evolving theories and landscapes. Res Policy 39(10):1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Council of the European Union (2016) Outcome of proceedings of May 27, 2016 – RECH 208 TELECOM 100, 9526/16. Brussels. As of 19 August 2016:
  12. Edwards E (2013) The prevailing view in biomedicine and drug discovery is that we need more “innovation”. Available at:, Accessed 19 June 2016
  13. Eisenberg RS (2012) Wisdom of the ages or dead-hand control? Patentable subject matter for diagnostic methods after in Re Bilski. Case West Res J Law Technol Internet 3(1):1–65Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2012a) Commission recommendation of 17 July 2012 on access to and preservation of scientific information. COM(2012) 4890 final, Brussels. As of 19 August 2016:
  15. European Commission (2012b) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: a reinforced European research area partnership for excellence and growth COM(2012) 392 final, Brussels. As of 19 August 2016:
  16. European Commission (2015) Validation of the results of the public consultation on Science 2.0: science in transition, Brussels: European Commission. As of 19 August 2016:
  17. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13(6):e1002165. Scholar
  18. Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooden S, Grant J (2013) Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. MG-1217-AAMC. As of 19 August 2016:
  19. Hayden EC (2012) Study challenges existence of arsenic-based life. Nature:1038.
  20. Heller M (1998) The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from marx to markets. Harvard Law Rev 111:621–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heller M (2016) The tragedy of the anti-commons.
  22. Holmes D (2016) A new chapter in innovation. Nature 533:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopkins MM, Martin PA, Nightingale P (2007) The myth of the biotech revolution: an assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change. Res Policy 36(4):566–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keserű J(2015) A new approach to measuring the impact of open data. Sunlight foundation blog. May 5, 2015. As of 19 August 2016:
  25. Kidwell MC, Lazarević LB, Baranski E, Hardwicke TE, Piechowski S, Falkenberg LS, Kennett C, Slowik A, Sonnleitner C, Hess-Holden C, Errington TM (2016) Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biol 14(5):e1002456. Scholar
  26. Kleiner S, Horton R (2014) How should medical science change? Lancet 383(9913):197–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lateral Economics (2016) Permission granted: the economic value of data assets under alternative policy regimes. A lateral economics report for the Open Data Institute. Accessed 21 Mar 2017
  28. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, Salman RA, Chan A, Glasziou P (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912):101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manville C, Jones MM, Frearson M, Castle-Clarke S, Henham ML, Gunashekar S, Grant J (2015) Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: an evaluation: findings and observations. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Scholar
  30. Marjanovic S, Robin E, Lichten CA, Harte E, MacLure C, Parks S, Horvath V, Côté G, Roberge G, Rashid M (2015) A review of the dementia research landscape and workforce capacity in the United Kingdom. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. RR-1186-ALZSOC. As of 19 August 2016:
  31. Marshall E (2012) U.S. appeals court hears gene patent arguments. Science 337(6092):277–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, McDougall D, Nosek BA, Ram K, Soderberg CK, Spies JR (2016) How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5:145. Scholar
  33. Moedas C (2015) Open innovation, open science, open to the world. A new start for Europe: opening to an ERA of innovation conference, 22 June 2015, SPEECH-15-5243, Brussels. As of 19 August 2016:
  34. Morgan Jones M, Castle-Clarke S, Brooker D, Nason E, Huzair F, Chataway J (2014) The structural genomics consortium. A knowledge platform for drug discovery RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA RR-512-SGC As of 19 August 2016:
  35. Nelson RR (2004) The market economy and the scientific commons. Res Policy 33:455–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. NESTA (2007) How innovation happens in six ‘low innovation’ sectors. Research report, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2016) Amsterdam call for action on open science. Publication of the Dutch Presidency of May 7, 2016. Brussels. As of 19 August 2016:
  38. Owen G, Hopkins M (2016) Science, the state and the city: Britain’s struggle to succeed in biotechnology. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res Policy 32(9):1695–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Savage N (2016) Competition: unlikely partnerships. Nature 533(7602):S56–S58. Scholar
  41. Stern N (2016) Building on success and learning from experience. An independent review of the research excellence framework. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of the UK Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Swan A, Gargouri Y Hunt M, Harnad S (2015) Open access policy: numbers, analysis, effectiveness. Pasteur4OA Work package 3 report, Open access policiesGoogle Scholar
  43. Tait J, Chataway J (2007) The governance of corporations, technological change, and risk: examining industrial perspectives on the development of genetically modified crops. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 25:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor J, Markanovic S, Nolte E, Pollitt A, Rubin J (2015) Treatment for dementia: learning from breakthroughs for other conditions. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. RR-909-DH. As of 19 August 2016:
  45. Van den Eynden V, Bishop L (2014) Incentives and motivations for sharing research data, a researcher’s perspective. Knowledge exchange report, University of Essex. As of 19 August 2016:
  46. Vincent-Lamarre P, Boivin J, Gargouri Y, Larivière V, Harnad S (2016) Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: the MELIBEA score. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67.
  47. Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC (2015) Make outbreak research open access. Nature 518(7540):477–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SussexBrightonUK
  2. 2.RAND Europe, Westbrook CentreCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations