How not to bring science and commerce closer together

Tuesday 06 August 2002 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

It is difficult to sympathise with the reasoning behind Cambridge University's proposal to claim ownership retroactively over the inventions and research of its academics. The plan, which is supposed to take effect in January, would, at a stroke, remove any incentive for the brightest scientists to come up with schemes, products and processes that would benefit the rest of humanity, from biotechnological research into new medicines to understanding global climate change.

Not only would the more entrepreneurially minded be deprived of an opportunity to make a profit from their work; we also find that the most altruistically inclined are put off by the idea that they would no longer be able, say, to give their latest software away free, but would have to surrender it to the University authorities.

It all points to a rather poor prospect for the "Cambridge phenomenon" and the growth of the so-called "silicon fen" of high-technology companies, already threatened by a collapse in commercial confidence.

The University justifies this extraordinary move, akin to a 100 per cent tax rate applied retrospectively, by claiming that, in the words of Robert Marshal, the head of technology transfer, "there are perhaps 5 per cent of scientists who have the entrepreneurial skills and drive to exploit their ideas, but I think there's great swathe below those who are very gifted but aren't served well by the present set-up."

That may well be true, but surely the more sensible course of action would be to set up an office that they could go to which would give them advice about the commercialisation of their work. The University could charge a fee for this sort of advice, in the same way that a patent lawyer or a venture-capital firm would.

Successive governments, industrialists and academics have all agreed that technology transfer is one of the keys to Britain's survival as an advanced industrialised economy. We have in Cambridge an excellent example of how all those good intentions can be made real, to the benefit of all concerned. The University of Cambridge should think again before it rips through this web of commercial and scientific excellence.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in