Open Science vs Patents
One of the primary limitations of patents is the inherent clash between the core principles of academia and open science and the commercialization of knowledge. Universities are built on the foundation of open sharing and collaboration, promoting the free exchange of ideas to advance human knowledge. Patents, on the other hand, create exclusive rights and monopolies, hindering the dissemination of knowledge (Boldrin and Levine 2009; Fabrizio 2007). This can impede scientific progress by restricting access to critical research findings. Additionally, the patenting process can be time-consuming and expensive (Stodden 2014), with little evidence to support the effectiveness of patents (Kenney and Patton 2009; Williams 2017). Moreover, the competitive nature of patents, and the perverse career pressures to produce more patents - Edwards and Roy 2017, may hinder collaboration among researchers.
Some institutions, including the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) and Aarhus University, have taken a bolder approach by adopting a ‘no patenting’ policy to permit the free re-use and distribution of their research. These policies recognise that for most universities acquiring patents and selling licences is loss-making and inhibits innovation.
Dylan Roskams-Edris writes the following in an article about Intellectual Property at the Neuro:
- When these basic knowledge outputs are subject to the restrictions imposed by patents because of potential (and in the vast majority of cases unrealized[17][18]) commercial potential, they pose at worst a serious risk of hindering downstream research and future commercial development[19] and at best contribute little to downstream innovation[20] and the public good[21].