Real Impediments to Academic Biomedical Research

Numerous scholars have expressed concern over the growing "privatization of the scientific commons" represented by the growth in academic patenting. Even before the Bayh-Dole Act and the pervasive patenting of academic science, however, there was an earlier concern over the extent to which the drive for recognition among scientists and competition for priority and associated rewards also limited contributions to the scientific commons. This suggests the utility of a more open-ended consideration of the different factors—not just patenting—that might affect knowledge flows across scientists. In this paper, we use a simple economic perspective that emphasizes the benefits and costs of excluding others from research results and analyze the empirical evidence on exclusion in biomedical research. We suggest, first, that one might distinguish between legal and practical (i.e., lower cost) excludability—and that practical excludability, at least in the world of academic research, may have little to do with patents. At the same time, however, we suggest that excludability may indeed be a real concern for academic and, particularly, biomedical research, but to understand where and how it occurs, we need to look beyond patents to consider additional ways in which flows of knowledge and other inputs into research may be restricted (including secrecy and control over materials). We do find restrictions imposed on the flow of information and materials across biomedical researchers. While patents play some role, they are not determinative. What appears to matter are both academic and commercial incentives and effective excludability. Exclusion is rarely associated with the existence of a patent in academic settings, but is more readily achieved through secrecy or not sharing research materials.