权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Patently Innovative? Re-interpreting the history of industrial medicine

专利创新？

基本信息

批准号：
AH/I027339/1
负责人：
Graeme Gooday
金额：
$ 10.29万
依托单位：
University of Leeds
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2011
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2011 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FI027339%2F1
关键词：
Patently Innovative Re interpreting history

项目摘要

The Centre for the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds, collaborating with the Thackray Museum in Leeds aim to render more broadly accessible the museum's very substantial collections on innovation in medical technology. This project will be as much Knowledge Exchange as Knowledge Transfer since it will involve university researchers in HPS bringing knowledge and methods from their prior research, while Thackray Museum staff will bring their collections knowledge and knowledge of non-academic audiences and methods of communication. The museum's curatorial and education staff will develop new knowledge and skills in using patent data and interpreting information about developments in healthcare technology, which will improve their ability to interpret the history of medical innovations for a range of target audiences. Reciprocally University researchers will gain new skills and understanding in using research to generate public outputs, through involvement in audience consultation work and production of interpretation material for non-academic audiences. The principal research drawn upon is the recently completed AHRC-funded project Owning & Disowning Invention: intellectual property, authority and identity in British Science and Technology in the period 1870-1930. That explored the motivations for some innovators in electrical technology to patent innovations while others engaged in 'open' publicly shared innovation. Patenting was not governed by a single strategy nor did it have a simple meaning: it could be for profit, to sustain research, to support families, to attract capital investment, to develop commercial bargaining tools or to protect creative assets against predatory rivals. Other innovations went unpatented for similarly diverse reasons: they were not innovative enough to secure legal protection; the costs of patenting could not feasibly be recouped from royalties or litigation; it constituted an illegitimate monopoly of knowledge; or that innovations ought to be shared altruistically for the public good, or to protect 'gentlemanly' status. The last of these was the typical strategy of many medical practitioners as illustrated in the two recently completed PhD theses to be drawn upon for this knowledge exchange project. Dr Annie Jamieson's thesis shows that the introduction of unpatented X-rays and ultra-violet lamps to medical therapy and diagnosis in the 1900s was often to meet explicit and public patient demand. Dr Claire Jones' thesis 'Between Commerce and Professionalism' on trade catalogues shows, however, that the contemporary electrical industry promoted patented devices for lighting, therapeutics and hearing assistance in medicine driven primarily by motives of publicity and profit. The outcomes of these three completed research projects will be applied initially to three electrical artefacts in the Thackray collections to show how the industrial process of patenting entered mainstream healthcare from the late nineteenth century: hearing aids, electrotherapy, X-ray related apparatus. This will reveal the limitations of existing medical museum exhibits that refer only to the heterodox (quack) 'patent medicines' of the 18th and 19th centuries or simply to the hi-tech biopatenting characteristic of the Cold War era or its 21st century aftermath. This Knowledge Transfer project thus fills in the gap in the conventional museum narrative, enabling the Thackray Museum to explain to its many visitors how innovation in medicine has at least sometimes been driven extrinsically by industrial imperatives rather than by the humanitarian aspirations of physicians in healthcare. This will enable such museum visitors to reflect critically on their own experiences of advanced technologized medicine and its historical development, to ask how far the growth of intellectual property in healthcarehas centred on meeting patients' needs or instead on magnifying the profits of manufacture.

利兹大学科学历史和哲学中心与利兹的萨克雷博物馆合作，旨在使博物馆关于医疗技术创新的大量藏品更广泛地获得。该项目将尽可能多的知识交流知识转移，因为它将涉及大学研究人员在HPS带来的知识和方法，从他们以前的研究，而萨克雷博物馆的工作人员将带来他们的收藏知识和知识的非学术观众和沟通方法。博物馆的策展和教育人员将在使用专利数据和解释医疗技术发展信息方面发展新的知识和技能，这将提高他们为一系列目标受众解释医疗创新历史的能力。反过来，大学研究人员将通过参与受众咨询工作和为非学术受众制作口译材料，获得利用研究产生公共产出的新技能和理解。主要的研究是最近完成的AHRC资助的项目拥有和否认发明：1870-1930年期间英国科学技术的知识产权，权威和身份。该研究探讨了一些电气技术创新者申请创新专利的动机，而另一些创新者则从事“开放”的公开共享创新。专利权不是由单一的战略管理的，也没有简单的意义：它可以是为了盈利，维持研究，支持家庭，吸引资本投资，开发商业谈判工具或保护创造性资产免受掠夺性竞争对手的侵害。其他创新没有获得专利权也是出于类似的不同原因：它们的创新性不足以获得法律的保护;专利的成本不可能从版税或诉讼中收回;它构成了对知识的非法垄断;或者创新应该为了公共利益而无私地分享，或者为了保护“神圣的”地位。最后一种是许多医疗从业人员的典型战略，最近完成的两篇博士论文对此作了说明，这两篇论文将用于本知识交流项目。Annie Jamieson博士的论文表明，在20世纪初，将未获得专利的X射线和紫外线灯引入医学治疗和诊断通常是为了满足明确和公众的患者需求。然而，克莱尔·琼斯博士关于贸易目录的论文《在商业与物质主义之间》表明，当代电气工业主要是在宣传和利润的动机下，推广用于照明、治疗和听力辅助的专利设备。这三个已完成的研究项目的成果将首先应用于萨克雷收藏品中的三个电子制品，以展示专利申请的工业过程如何从世纪末进入主流医疗保健：助听器，电疗，X射线相关设备。这将揭示现有医学博物馆展品的局限性，这些展品仅涉及18世纪和19世纪的非正统（江湖郎中）“专利药物”，或仅涉及冷战时代或其世纪后的高科技生物专利特征。因此，这个知识转移项目填补了传统博物馆叙事中的差距，使萨克雷博物馆能够向许多参观者解释医学创新如何至少有时被工业需求所驱动，而不是医疗保健医生的人道主义愿望。这将使这些博物馆的参观者能够批判性地反思他们自己对先进技术化医学及其历史发展的经验，并询问医疗保健领域知识产权的增长在多大程度上是集中在满足患者的需求上，还是集中在扩大制造利润上。