Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

PATENTS

Access and openness in biotechnology research collaborations between universities and industry

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 1413–1419 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

An empirical study of publicly funded collaborative research projects in biotechnology identifies contractual provisions that govern the extent of access to and openness of research results.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Modeling access and openness.
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data and code availability

The results were obtained using the STATA SE version 15.1 statistical software package. The do-file can be obtained from the authors upon request.

References

  1. Perkmann, M. et al. Res. Policy 42, 423–442 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N. & Scott, J. T. J. Econ. Stud. 85, 485–491 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dasgupta, P. & David, P. Res. Policy 3, 487–521 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N. & Louis, K. S. N. Engl. J. Med. 335, 1734–1739 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, W.M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L. & Walsh, J. in Challenges to Research Universities (ed. R.G. Noll) 171–199 (Brookings Institution Press, 1998).

  6. Thursby, J. G. & Thursby, M. C. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 23, 620–639 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gans, J. S. & Murray, F. in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report (eds Lerner, J. R. & Stern, S.) 51–103 (University of Chicago Press, 2012).

  8. Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C. & Toole, A. A. Ind. Corp. Change 24, 251–279 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lerner, J. & Merges, R. P. J. Ind. Econ. 46, 125–156 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mukherjee, A. & Stern, S. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 27, 449–462 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rai, A. K. & Cook-Deegan, R. Science 358, 874–876 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Egelie, K. J., Graff, G. D., Strand, S. P. & Johansen, B. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1025–1031 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Egelie, K. J., Strand, S. P., Johansen, B. & Myskja, B. K. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 495–499 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mazzucato, M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Press, 2015).

  15. The Research Council of Norway. What the contract involves. https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/when-you-have-received-funding/contracts/what-the-contract-involves/ (2019).

  16. Stevens, H., Van Overwalle, G., Van Looy, B. & Huys, I. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 504–510 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Walsh, J.P., Arora, A. & Cohen, W.M. Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation. in Patents in the Knowledge-based Economy 285–340 (National Academies Press, 2003).

  18. Lei, Z., Juneja, R. & Wright, B. D. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 36–40 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Evans, J. A. Soc. Stud. Sci. 40, 757–791 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E. & Louis, K. S. N. Engl. J. Med. 334, 368–373 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Merton, R.K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (University of Chicago Press, 1973).

  22. Petrusson, U. Research and Utilization (University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law, 2016).

  23. Brandl, B. & Glenna, L. L. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 42, 622–656 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cook-Deegan, R. & Heaney, C. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 11, 383–425 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. DESCA. DESCA 2020 Model Consortium Agreement http://www.desca-2020.eu/ (2017).

  26. Sohn, S. Y. & Lee, M. J. Technol. Transf. 37, 532–549 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kretschmer, M., Singh, S. & Meletti, B. IP & collaborative agreements in the creative industries. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404869(2018).

  28. Eggington, E., Osborn, R. & Kaplan, C. Collaborative Research between Business and Universities: The Lambert Toolkit 8 Years On (UK Intellectual Property Office, 2013).

  29. Henry, C. & Stiglitz, J. E. Glob. Policy 1, 237–251 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Andersen, B. & Konzelmann, S. Res. Policy 37, 12–28 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Center for Intellectual Property (CIP) at the University of Gothenburg, Chalmers University of Technology and Norwegian University of Science and Technology for strategic insights on intellectual property platforms, as well as NORSI, the Norwegian Research School in Innovation. The authors also sincerely thank U. Petrusson at the University of Gothenburg and B. Johansen at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology for supervision and for discussions, and G. D. Graff at Colorado State University and W. Sofka at Copenhagen Business School for discussions. The following organizations have contributed as funding and supporting partners: NTNU Technology Transfer AS, Leogriff AS and the Research Council of Norway as part of Industrial PhD grants 247566 and 238770.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    Knut Jørgen Egelie

  2. Center for Intellectual Property, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

    Knut Jørgen Egelie & Haakon Thue Lie

  3. NTNU Technology Transfer AS, Trondheim, Norway

    Knut Jørgen Egelie

  4. Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

    Haakon Thue Lie & Roger Sørheim

  5. Leogriff AS, Oslo, Norway

    Haakon Thue Lie

  6. Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Christoph Grimpe

Authors
  1. Knut Jørgen Egelie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haakon Thue Lie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Grimpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roger Sørheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Knut Jørgen Egelie.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Egelie, K.J., Lie, H.T., Grimpe, C. et al. Access and openness in biotechnology research collaborations between universities and industry. Nat Biotechnol 37, 1413–1419 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0324-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0324-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research