This post was inspired by Sandra Porter’s post on teaching ethical issues in biotechnology.
When I started my scientific career, all I wanted to do was work in academia as a researcher. The general belief was that “real” research was done by academics and all industry did was take academic principles, scale them up and commercialize them. That was a very naive 15 years ago. The reality turned out to be rather different.
As things stand, I never worked in academia after finishing grad school, and don’t really do any research anymore My understanding of the role of academic research has also changed. One only needs to look at the number of companies that spin out of academic institutions. Just last week, I was at a symposium where, in about six talks, about 4 or 5 companies were mentioned. The talks were all by academics whose research had resulted in the formation of a company or two. I am sure many purists worry about this, and believe that commercialization takes the essence away from academic research, but I beg to differ. There are some who spend their careers understanding the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry and biology. Others develop new mathematical foundations. However the majority of research is and should be focused on how we can take those principles and do something more tanglible with them. People are trying to indentify better sources of energy, better means of nutrition, improve the environment, alleviate disease, develop better materials, etc. I see nothing wrong with commercializing research that has an end goal in mind, a product as it were. Industry has its own constraints, especially the underlying need for maintaining profitability. In such an environment research usually cannot, especially today, carry the same risk as academic research, and needs to operate on much shorter timelines. In a world where Bell Labs is a relic of the past, academia has a very valuable role in driving innvotion. The role of industry is to foster innovation by maintaining close academic ties and by taking ideas from academia and bringing them to fruition.
The above picture is rather simplistic, but is sufficient for the following argument The relationships and roles of universities/academic institutions and industry have changed. The number of people choosing industrial careers has, I suspect, increased over the years, with increasing opportunities to work in startups, etc. Like Sandra says, perhaps we should rethink what we teach in science courses. It would be very useful to have classes in bioethics and business management, and even a rudimentary knowledge of IP law would probably help a lot of people, especially those who might want to pursue careers as IP attorneys or traverse a more management oriented career. Another change that would greatly benefit young scientists joining industry is some exposure to the kinds of practises one is expected to follow in industry. I will use my own, somewhat related, example. While I had been programming for some time as a graduate student, there were practises that had to learned (and quickly), when I started programming in a more structured environment. I would have been productive faster, if I had been more familiar with some of the “workflows” that need to be used in industry. All the courses I mention should be electives. There are a few people I know, who would never, ever want to endure a course in IP law.
Technorati Tags: Science Education, Industry, Academia
4 Comments
I agree with a lot of your views on the role of academia . While I am not worried by academicians going to bed with industry, I am horrified at the utilization of public funds to foster these startups. The proprietary nature of most industrial reserarch is but natural , but considering that many of the new companies are based on results and expertise gained from publicly funded projects and result in a product which in the end is sold back to the very public for a massive profit, something seems wrong here..
Somehow somewhere in this cycle I would like to see some accountability to the very public who funded the early breakthrough that made such a startup possible. Possibly along the lines of industry supporting public science in a big way and giving back to the very public whos tax dollars made it possible for them to get where they are. And NO! the fact that these companies stil pay their taxes and therefore “give back” is not an acceptable answer
I have my red knickers on
HJ
I agree with a lot of your views on the role of academia . While I am not worried by academicians going to bed with industry, I am horrified at the utilization of public funds to foster these startups. The proprietary nature of most industrial reserarch is but natural , but considering that many of the new companies are based on results and expertise gained from publicly funded projects and result in a product which in the end is sold back to the very public for a massive profit, something seems wrong here..
Somehow somewhere in this cycle I would like to see some accountability to the very public who funded the early breakthrough that made such a startup possible. Possibly along the lines of industry supporting public science in a big way and giving back to the very public whos tax dollars made it possible for them to get where they are. And NO! the fact that these companies stil pay their taxes and therefore “give back” is not an acceptable answer
I have my red knickers on
HJ
Hari,
Very valid point, and one I did not address at all. The real picture is a little murkier though. Universities have a lot of very interesting technology transfer policies, and very often the person developing the technology gets screwed (especially grad students and post docs), since the technology belongs to the University and not necessarily the person who developed it. Companies routinely license a lot of technology. That meant a university and usually the inventor getting a bunch of royalties or related fees. What makes the current system more interesting is that in the past the academic would continue with academia and not pay attention to the commercialization. Nowadays, the same academic is more than likely to take that technology forward himself/herself by starting a company, usually with the academic as a CSO or member of the board. That means that individuals are benefiting increasing (commercially) from work that is often publicly funded.
As you suggest, in an ideal world, the startup should support public science. The problem is that most startups don’t make money for a while, which makes give back difficult (although many do fund postdocs). My problem is with labs that are run as defacto R&D facilities for some startups.
The question is this. Should the public have unfettered access to technology/science developed as the result of public funding? Or can some healthy balance be found between public access and the rights of an individual or institution to protects their iP?
Hari,
Very valid point, and one I did not address at all. The real picture is a little murkier though. Universities have a lot of very interesting technology transfer policies, and very often the person developing the technology gets screwed (especially grad students and post docs), since the technology belongs to the University and not necessarily the person who developed it. Companies routinely license a lot of technology. That meant a university and usually the inventor getting a bunch of royalties or related fees. What makes the current system more interesting is that in the past the academic would continue with academia and not pay attention to the commercialization. Nowadays, the same academic is more than likely to take that technology forward himself/herself by starting a company, usually with the academic as a CSO or member of the board. That means that individuals are benefiting increasing (commercially) from work that is often publicly funded.
As you suggest, in an ideal world, the startup should support public science. The problem is that most startups don't make money for a while, which makes give back difficult (although many do fund postdocs). My problem is with labs that are run as defacto R&D; facilities for some startups.
The question is this. Should the public have unfettered access to technology/science developed as the result of public funding? Or can some healthy balance be found between public access and the rights of an individual or institution to protects their iP?
One Trackback
[...] have bemoaned the death of such bastions of innovation like Bell Labs in the past. But there is a trend in the biomedical [...]