Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?
Genome Medicine
Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?
Timothy Caulfield 0
Shawn HE Harmon 2
Yann Joly 1
0 Health Law and Science Policy Group, Law Centre, University of Alberta , Edmonton, T6G 2H5 , Canada
1 Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University , 740 Dr. Penfield Avenue Suite 5200, Montreal, H3A 1A4 , Canada
2 School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College , South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL , UK
Background: Efforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. Over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work. Concurrently, they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open science model) in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and to maximize the impact of their research. Discussion: We present selected guidelines from three countries (Canada, United States, and United Kingdom) situated at the forefront of genomics to illustrate this potential policy conflict. Examining the innovation ecosystem and the messages conveyed by the different policies surveyed, we further investigate the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies. Summary: Commercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we wish to point out the need to gather additional evidence on the coexistence of open science and commercialization policies and on its impact, both positive and negative, on genomics academic research.
Background
Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1949), Article 15 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and Article 15
of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and
Human Rights (2005) all articulate the obligation to
share scientific knowledge and the right to share in the
benefits of scientific knowledge. But like the concept of
‘benefit sharing’, the idea of optimally sharing and
maximally utilising scientific knowledge is fraught with
complexity, confusion, and policies at seemingly stark
crosspurposes. The matter is further complicated by the fact
that research is becoming more expensive, research
structures are growing more complex and fractured, and
innovation levels, at least in the pharmaceutical setting,
are not increasing [
1
].
Efforts to meet these legally mandated needs and to
simultaneously improve research outcomes have resulted
in researchers being confronted with complex and
seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform
their tasks. This is particularly vexing for
universitybased genomics researchers. On the one hand, they are
told to commercialize their research by patenting,
licensing, and forming close partnerships with industry,
which has particular skills, financial assets to facilitate
the translation of knowledge into products, and
objectives. It is presumed that this will generate maximum
wealth and benefit through the quicker introduction of
socially useful knowledge and products. On the other
hand, researchers are encouraged to share data and
disseminate knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open
science model) so as to foster scientific progress, meet
humanitarian goals, and (again) maximize the impact of
research.
As genomics research leaders with mature regulatory
frameworks and enviable regulatory capacity, and as
regular expositors of human rights rhetoric, Canada, the
United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US)
might be expected to take a lead in clarifying the
message to researchers and rationalizing the expectations to
which they are held. While we recognize that other
jurisdictions will have an equally strong interest in this
regard (for example, Japan and the BRIC countries
Brazil, Russia, India and China), space limits our ability
to address them, and, in any event, this paper is not
intended as a comprehensive survey/study. Below we
discuss the prevalence of these conflicting messages in
Canada, the UK, the US, and internationally, and
highlight some of the practical difficulties they are creating
within the global research community. In doing so, we
focus on the bioscience sector, which has been the
subject of significant expectation and support, and we offer
some hope to researchers that a rational course is not
impossible.
Discussion
Commercialize and translate
While there are numerous social and political forces at
work in generating the above-noted pressure to
commercialize research, two in particular are noteworthy.
The first relates to the need, recognized by governments
and imposed on researchers, to secure research funds
from sources other (...truncated)