Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science☆

Open Science is a dynamic system of knowledge production that depends on the disclosure of knowledge by researchers as an input into knowledge production by future researchers. To analyze the conditions supporting Open Science, we develop an overlapping generations model that focuses on the trade-off between disclosure and secrecy. While secrecy yields private returns that are independent of the actions of future generations, the benefits of disclosure depend in part on the use of disclosed knowledge by the subsequent researchers. We show that Open Science and Secrecy are both potential equilibria, and that the feasibility of Open Science depends on factors such as the costs of accessing knowledge from prior generations and the relative benefits to private exploitation under secrecy versus disclosure. In parameter regions where both Open Science and Secrecy can be supported, Open Science is associated with a higher level of social welfare. The analysis has policy implications for a number of areas, including public support for research training, appropriate design of formal intellectual property, and the role of scientific norms and institutions (such as an effective peer review process) in maintaining Open Science over the long run.

[1]  Paul A. David,et al.  Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution: From Keeping 'Nature's Secrets' to the Institutionalization of 'Open Science' , 2004 .

[2]  Scott Stern,et al.  Climbing Atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research , 2006, American Economic Review.

[3]  Athanasios Orphanides,et al.  Rational Addiction with Learning and Regret , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

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

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

[6]  A. Arora Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights And The Market For Know-How , 1995 .

[7]  J. Gans,et al.  Patents, Papers, Pairs & Secrets: Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge * , 2008 .

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

[9]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[10]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[11]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the black box , 1983 .

[12]  Paul F. Uhlir,et al.  Intellectual Property—When Is It the Best Incentive Mechanism for S&T Data and Information? , 2003 .

[13]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America , 1998 .

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

[15]  Juuso Toikka,et al.  Secrecy versus patenting , 2007 .

[16]  Ignatius J. Horstmann,et al.  Patents as Information Transfer Mechanisms: To Patent or (Maybe) Not to Patent , 1985, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  Paul A. David,et al.  Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of "Open Science" Institutions , 1998 .

[18]  Charles I. Jones,et al.  R & D-Based Models of Economic Growth , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  S. Scotchmer,et al.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law , 1991 .

[20]  Paul A. David,et al.  The Economics of Scientific Research Coalitions: Collaborative Network Formation in the Presence of Multiple Funding Agencies , 2003 .

[21]  Olivier Gossner,et al.  Overlapping Generation Games with Mixed Strategies , 1996, Math. Oper. Res..

[22]  Benjamin F. Jones The Burden of Knowledge and the &Apos;Death of the Renaissance Man&Apos;: Is Innovation Getting Harder? , 2005 .

[23]  James J. Anton,et al.  Little patents and big secrets: managing intellectual property , 2004 .

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

[25]  G. Grossman,et al.  Innovation and growth in the global economy , 1993 .

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

[27]  Suzanne Scotchmer The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties , 2001 .

[28]  N. Rosenberg Science, Invention and Economic Growth , 1974 .

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

[30]  M. Polanyi Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[31]  A. Mukherjee,et al.  Career Concerns, Matching, and Optimal Disclosure Policy , 2008 .

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

[33]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Innovation policy and the economy , 2001 .

[34]  J. Tirole,et al.  The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond , 2004 .

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

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

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