Patents, Papers, Pairs & Secrets: Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge *

Motivated by the central role of voluntary knowledge disclosure in ensuring cumulative progress, this paper evaluates the conditions supporting the disclosure of privately funded new knowledge through scientific publication, patenting, or both. We ground our analysis in the incentives facing researchers and their funders: scientists have incentives to disclose discoveries through scientific publication, while firms have incentives to protect their ideas through patenting or secrecy. When negotiating their compensation, researchers and firms bargain over whether (and how) knowledge will be disclosed. We evaluate four different disclosure regimes: secrecy, commercial science (where the only disclosures result from patenting), open science (where the only disclosures occur through scientific publication) and patent-paper pairs (where the firm discloses along both dimensions). Our model derives conditions under which each of these outcomes emerges as the result of the strategic interaction between researchers and research funders, and offers a number of novel insights into the determinants of the disclosure strategy of a firm. Among other findings, our analysis highlights the subtle interdependency between patenting and publication: for example, as the knowledge required for patenting and publication converge, we will observe either secrecy or patent-paper pairs, to the exclusion of uni-dimensional disclosures (i.e., Commercial Science or Open Science). Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: O34.

[1]  William Shockley,et al.  The theory of p-n junctions in semiconductors and p-n junction transistors , 1949, Bell Syst. Tech. J..

[2]  R. Merton Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. , 1957 .

[3]  R. Nelson The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  Russel E. Kaufman,et al.  “Science, the Endless Frontier” , 1960, Nature.

[5]  K. Arrow Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[6]  R. Merton The Normative Structure of Science , 1973 .

[7]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[8]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[9]  P. Romer Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  N. Rosenberg Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) , 1990 .

[11]  M. Norton Wise,et al.  Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin , 1991 .

[12]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[13]  L. Ercolani,et al.  Growth of LLC-PK1 renal cells is mediated by EGR-1 up-regulation of G protein alpha i-2 protooncogene transcription. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[14]  V. Rangnekar,et al.  The zinc finger transcription factor EGR-1 impedes interleukin-1-inducible tumor growth arrest , 1995, Molecular and cellular biology.

[15]  S. Scotchmer,et al.  Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products Be Patentable? , 1996 .

[16]  S. Sturdy The private science of Louis Pasteur , 1996, Medical History.

[17]  D. E. Stokes Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[18]  M. Kremer Patent Buy-Outs: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation , 1997 .

[19]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[20]  C. Turck,et al.  BLNK: a central linker protein in B cell activation. , 1998, Immunity.

[21]  John E. Brandl,et al.  Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation , 1998 .

[22]  P Ducor Intellectual property. Coauthorship and coinventorship. , 2000, Science.

[23]  Philippe Ducor,et al.  Coauthorship and Coinventorship , 2000, Science.

[24]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .

[25]  Fiona E. Murray Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering , 2002 .

[26]  Oren Bar-Gill,et al.  The Value of Giving Away Secrets , 2003 .

[27]  Lawrence Lessig,et al.  Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity , 2004 .

[28]  Philippe Aghion,et al.  Academic Freedom, Private-Sector Focus, and the Process of Innovation , 2005 .

[29]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behavior: Demographics or Opportunities? , 2005 .

[30]  Fiona Murray,et al.  Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome , 2005, Science.

[31]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  Gender Differences in Patenting in the Academic Life Sciences , 2006, Science.

[32]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights , 2008 .

[33]  Michael A. Heller,et al.  The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives , 2008 .

[34]  Scott Stern,et al.  Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science☆ , 2009 .