 |
|
Biotechnology Products and University-Based Science—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: These letters illustrate the challenges in reconciling the interests of university researchers, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and the public. We agree with Dr Lempert that the public interest mission of universities must be preserved. We must not strip these delicate institutions of the special values that set universities apart from corporations. But it still should be possible to enable universities to benefit from the fruits of their research in order to support that very mission. Mr Sobolski notes the poverty of most academic technology licensing programs (we agree), and cites the concept of a patent-free approach to innovation as 1 possible solution to these difficulties. However, we believe that the biomedical industry would likely not participate in such a system, even if universities did. As a result, the new set of winners would be these companies’ stockholders, while the new set of losers would be most academic . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD
akesselheim@partners.org
Jerry Avorn, MD
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics
Department of Medicine
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Mass
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
David Korn and Stephen J. Heinig
JAMA. 2005;293(23):2862-2863.
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
|
