IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/16980.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Funding Scientific Knowledge: Selection, Disclosure and the Public-Private Portfolio

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Gans
  • Fiona E. Murray

Abstract

This paper examines argues that while two distinct perspectives characterize the foundations of the public funding of research - filling a selection gap and solving a disclosure problem - in fact both the selection choices of public funders and their criteria for disclosure and commercialization shape the level and type of funding for research and the disclosures that arise as a consequence. In making our argument, we begin by reviewing project selection criteria and policies towards disclosure and commercialization (including patent rights) made by major funding organizations, noting the great variation between these institutions. We then provide a model of how selection criteria and funding conditions imposed by funders interact with the preferences of scientists to shape those projects that accept public funds and the overall level of openness in research. Our analysis reveals complex and unexpected relationships between public funding, private funding, and public disclosure of research. We show, for example, that funding choices made by public agencies can lead to unintended, paradoxical effects, providing short-term openness while stifling longer-term innovation. Implications for empirical evaluation and an agenda for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Gans & Fiona E. Murray, 2011. "Funding Scientific Knowledge: Selection, Disclosure and the Public-Private Portfolio," NBER Working Papers 16980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16980
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16980.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mowery, David C & Sampat, Bhaven N, 2001. "Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(2), pages 317-355, June.
    2. Albert Banal‐Estañol & Inés Macho‐Stadler, 2010. "Scientific and Commercial Incentives in R&D: Research versus Development?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 185-221, March.
    3. Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, May.
    4. Robert E. Litan & Lesa Mitchell & E. J. Reedy, 2008. "Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 31-57, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kushlin, Valery & Ustenko, Viktoriya, 2017. "Modern World Practice of State Support of Perspective Scientific and Innovative Programs: Evaluation of the Developed Mechanisms of State Management of Innovation Development in the Context of Time Ch," Working Papers 041718, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    2. Dirk Czarnitzki & Christoph Grimpe & Maikel Pellens, 2015. "Access to research inputs: open science versus the entrepreneurial university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1050-1063, December.
    3. Gabriela Victoria ANGHELACHE & Madalina Gabriela ANGHEL & Gyorgy BODO, 2016. "Model of Static Portfolio Choices in an Arrow-Debreu Economy," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 64(1), pages 54-59, January.
    4. Luigi Cannari, 2011. "Networks of Firms and Local Territory: A Comment," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Doherr, Thorsten & Hussinger, Katrin & Schliessler, Paula & Toole, Andrew A., 2015. "Individual versus institutional ownership of university-discovered inventions," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-007, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    3. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.
    4. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, June.
    5. Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy, 2001. "Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 525-547, October.
    6. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    7. Deepak Hegde, 2005. "Public and Private Universities: Unequal Sources of Regional Innovation?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 19(4), pages 373-386, November.
    8. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    9. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    10. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041.
    11. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    12. Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2014. "Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 109-133, March.
    13. Claude DIEBOLT & Karine PELLIER, 2018. "Patents in the Long Run: Theory, History and Statistics," Working Papers of BETA 2018-20, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    14. Aldo Geuna & Alessandro Muscio, 2008. "The governance of University knowledge transfer," SPRU Working Paper Series 173, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. David Mowery, 2011. "Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 697-711, December.
    17. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Antonelli Cristiano, 2012. "Compulsory licensing: the foundations of an institutional innovation," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201207, University of Turin.
    19. Josef Šíma, 2005. "Intelektuální vlastnictví jako překážka na cestě k prosperitě [Intellectual property as an obstacle to prosperity]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2005(3), pages 369-382.
    20. Sinclair Davidson & Jason Potts, 2016. "The Social Costs of Innovation Policy," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 282-293, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16980. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.