Enclosing the Academic Commons – Increasing Knowledge Transfer or Eroding Academic Values?

  • Sigrid Sterckx
Part of the Einstein Meets Magritte: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society book series (EMMA, volume 11)


Academic research is increasingly being commercialised. This ­commercialisation trend has different dimensions, among which the massive increase of patenting and licensing activities by universities, the significant growth of industry funding of academic research via so-called contract research, and the creation of ever more ‘spin-out’ companies. All this is strongly encouraged by governments throughout the Western world. The commercialisation trend has far-reaching consequences for access to the fruits of academic research and so the question arises whether the current policies are indeed promoting innovation or whether they are instead a symptom of a pro-commercialisation culture which is blind to adverse effects. This paper discusses the justifications that are given for the current policies and raises the question to what extent they threaten important academic values. Next, the question will be addressed as to why policymakers seem to ignore the adverse effects of the commercialisation of academic research. Finally, a number of proposals for improving university policies will be made.


Technology Transfer Office Fiscal Year Patent Infringement Academic Patent Exclusive License 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abramowicz, M. 2005. The problem of patent underdevelopment, George Washington University Law School Public Law and Legal Theory working paper no. 179, available at, 9.
  2. Bagley, M. 2006. Academic discourse and proprietary rights: Putting patents in their proper place. Boston College Law Review 47: 217.Google Scholar
  3. Blumenthal, D., et al. 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, E.G., et al. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, W., R. Nelson, and J. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, T. 2006. A European perspective as to the extent to which experimental use, and certain other, defences to patent infringement, apply to differing types of research. London: Intellectual Property Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, R. 2001. Bargaining over the transfer of proprietary research tools: Is this market failing or emerging? In Expanding the boundaries of intellectual property: Innovation policy for the knowledge society, ed. R. Dreyfus, D. Zimmerman, and H. First, 223–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Geuna, A. 2001. The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues 35: 607.Google Scholar
  9. Geuna, A., and L. Nesta. 2003. University patenting and its effects on academic research. SEWPS Paper No. 99, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Sussex.Google Scholar
  10. Grushcow, J. 2004. Measuring secrecy: A cost of the patent system revealed. Journal of Legal Studies 33: 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heller, M., and R. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280: 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaffe, A., and J. Lerner. 2004. Innovation and its discontents – How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jensen, R., and M. Thursby. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review 91: 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lemley, M. 2005. Patenting nanotechnology. Stanford Law Review 58: 601.Google Scholar
  15. Lemley, M. 2007. Are universities patent trolls? Stanford Public Law Working Paper, draft available at
  16. Levin, R., A. Klevorick, R. Nelson, and S. Winter. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3: 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liebeskind, J. 2001. Risky business: Universities and intellectual property. Academe 87: 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mansfield, E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovations. Research Policy 20: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McSherry, C. 2001. Who owns academic work? 174. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Merton, R. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mowery, D., R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A. Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation – University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  22. Pollarito, K. 2005. When science has a potential payoff. The Scientist, 17 Jan 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Pool, R. 2000. Material transfer agreements. In Finding the path: Issues of access to research resources. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rai, A. 1999. Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwestern University Law Review 94: 77.Google Scholar
  25. Ritchie de Larena, L. 2007. The price of progress: Are universities adding to the cost? Houston Law Review 43: 1373.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, Richard. 2006. The trouble with medical journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stephan, P. 2001. Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Streitz, W., and A. Bennett. 2003. Material transfer agreements: A university perspective. Plant Physiology 133: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thursby, J., and M. Thursby. 2005. Pros and cons of faculty participation in licensing. In University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process, design and intellectual property, ed. G. Libecap, 187–210. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Thursby, J., R. Jensen, and M. Thursby. 2001. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thursby, M., et al. 2003. The Disclosure and licensing of University inventions. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21: 1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Washburn, J. 2005. University Inc. The corporate corruption of higher education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Wysocki, B. 2004. College try: Columbia’s pursuit of patent riches angers companies. Wall Street Journal, Dec 2004, A1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations