Has Licensing Changed Academic Research? Issues of Productivity, Faculty Incentives, and Public Policy

这项研究考察了教师在美国大学从事专利许可日益增长的趋势中所起的作用。重点是个别发明者的特点以及许可在开展和传播其研究方面的作用。自1980年以来，贝赫-多尔法案允许美国大学拥有和许可联邦资助的研究成果，与许可相关的活动急剧增加。大学将越来越多的许可活动作为它们对经济贡献不断增加的证据，而怀疑者则对其影响提出质疑。批评人士声称，许可带来的潜在经济回报已将教师从更基础的研究转移到应用研究。这项研究基于美国主要研究型大学六七千名教职员工的研究和许可活动小组数据库，这些大学包括加州理工大学、卡内基梅隆大学、康奈尔大学、哈佛大学、麻省理工学院、宾夕法尼亚州、宾夕法尼亚大学、宾夕法尼亚州立大学、普渡大学、斯坦福大学、威斯康星大学和德克萨斯A&AMM大学。这些大学之所以被选中，是因为它们作为主要研究型大学的地位和提供数据的承诺。大多数数据至少涵盖了1988-1999年期间。有了这些数据，人们就可以检查教员行为随时间的演变，以及它与个人特征或环境因素相关的程度。可以检查不同大学和不同学科之间的模式差异。讨论了三个主要问题：i.过去十年大学许可的增加是否反映了从基础研究转向和/或教职员工参与许可和发布研究结果的意愿增加？二、教师披露发明的倾向(即，当他们认为研究成果具有商业/许可潜力时，向大学提交报告)与个人特征(例如，出版记录、研究赞助)和其他特征(例如，学术学科、大学和/或系的影响)有何关系？三、发明者在研究、出版和许可相关活动方面的生命周期行为是什么？这项研究的基础是一个生命周期模型，在该模型中，教师可以选择从事基础研究或应用研究，并可以进行许可活动和出版。该理论模型提出了研究生产率的三个经验模型。一个涉及出版活动，另外两个涉及许可活动和生命周期内与应用研究相关的基础研究。对于每个模型，经验结果都是基于科学家和工程师个人的年度数据。分析方法为托比特和Logit回归分析。基于1983-96年期间602名普渡教员的初步结果倾向于支持该理论模型。此外，许可活动似乎随着时间的推移而发生变化，但出版活动或教师研究的基本/应用性质随着时间的推移几乎没有变化。结果将在出版物和相关专业会议上公布。

This research examines the role of faculty in the increasing trend for U.S. universities to engage in patent licensing. The focus is on the characteristics of individual inventors and the role of licensing in the conduct and dissemination of their research. Since 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act has allowed U.S. universities to own and license results from federally funded research, and license-related activity has increased dramatically. Universities cite increased licensing activity as evidence of their increasing contribution to the economy while skeptics question the impact. Critics claim that potential financial returns from licensing have diverted faculty from more basic to applied research. This research is based on a panel database of the research and licensing activity of six to seven thousand faculty members in major U.S. research universities, including Cal Tech, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Pennsylvania, Penn State, Purdue, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Texas A&M. These universities have been selected because of their status as major research universities and their commitment to provide data. Most data cover at least the period 1988-1999. With these data, one can examine the evolution of faculty behavior over time and the extent to which it is related to individual characteristics or to environmental factors. Differences in patterns across universities and disciplines can be examined. Three major issues are addressed: i. Does the increase in university licensing over the last decade reflect a shift away from fundamental research and/or an increased willingness of faculty to participate in licensing as well as publish the results of their research? ii. How is the propensity of faculty to disclose inventions (i.e., file a report with the university when they believe a research result has commercial/license potential) re-lated to individual characteristics (e.g., publication record, research sponsorship) and other characteristics (e.g., academic discipline, university and/or department effects)? iii. What is the life-cycle behavior of inventors with respect to research, publication, and license-related activity? The basis of the research is a life-cycle model in which faculty can choose to engage in basic or applied research and where licensing activity as well as publication is possible. This theoretical model suggests three empirical models of research productivity. One deals with publication activity, while the other two deal with licensing activity and basic relative to applied research over the life cycle. For each model empirical results are based on annual data for individual scientists and engineers. The method of analysis is Tobit and logit regression analysis. Preliminary results based on 602 Purdue faculty over the period 1983-96 tend to support the theoretical model. Further, there appear to be changes over time in licensing activity, but little or no changes over time in publication activity or the basic/applied nature of faculty research. Results will be reported in publications and relevant professional meetings.