 |
|
Biotechnology Products and University-Based Science
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: Drs Kesselheim and Avorn1 argue that broad ownership rights to basic biological information will stimulate investment in academic research and permit institutions to share in revenues from downstream pharmaceutical or biotechnology products. We believe that the authors’ policy analysis rests on arguable assumptions.
First, the primary goal of the Bayh-Dole Act was to stimulate commercial development of academic discoveries, not to enhance university revenues. Indeed, National Institutes of Health (NIH) support to medical schools and hospitals ($12 billion) in 2003 exceeded by 10-fold the Association of University Technology Managers’ reported total licensing income accruing to universities.2 Such public funding is predicated on the concept that basic research is a public good, not effectively appropriable by private interests or markets.
Second, basic biomedical research discoveries tend to be broadly enabling, making it very difficult to assign them precise credit for particular marketed products. NIH documented this problem when . . . [Full Text of this Article]
David Korn, MD
dkorn@aamc.org
Stephen J. Heinig, MA
Division of Biomedical and Health Sciences Research
Association of American Medical Colleges
Washington, DC
RELATED ARTICLES
Biotechnology Products and University-Based Science
Philip Lempert
JAMA. 2005;293(23):2861-2862.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Biotechnology Products and University-Based Science
Gregory K. Sobolski
JAMA. 2005;293(23):2862.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Biotechnology Products and University-Based Science—Reply
Aaron S. Kesselheim and Jerry Avorn
JAMA. 2005;293(23):2863.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
University-Based Science and Biotechnology Products: Defining the Boundaries of Intellectual Property
Aaron S. Kesselheim and Jerry Avorn
JAMA. 2005;293(7):850-854.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
