Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Empirical contributions to the debate over the commercialization of the life sciences are as rich in detail as they are diverse in approach and conclusions Citationbased analyses of the genetics literature suggest that patenting undermines knowledge use Survey research meanwhile supports the intuition that university scientists are unhindered daytoday by patent rights Material transfer agreements and other forms of intellectual property contracting are rather what appear to slow progress Other qualitative data imply that our understanding of the role that institutional contexts funding imperatives professional hierarchies and norms of scientific competition play is inadequate The hypothesis motivating many of these investigations the tragedy of the anticommons coupled with the ongoing controversy over gene patents undermining access at the point of patient care has generated litigation against patentholders such as Myriad Genetics Inc opened new areas of empirical inquiry and begun to reveal the complexity of commercializing scientific pursuitsIn addition to summarizing the strengths and limitations of this evolving body of empirical work the contribution I make to the debate over commercialization in the life sciences is twofold First I theorize a novel tradeoff of academic entrepreneurialism I term this tradeoff patent canalyzation and posit that by virtue of participating in the commercialization of their work academic scientists become more insular in terms of who they collaborate with and more entrenched in their chosen line of research inquiry Patent canalyzation theory thus draws attention to potential costs as well as potential benefits associated with patenting that are not captured by the anticommons hypothesis Second I develop a novel methodology to empirically test for patent canalyzation amongst leading scientists in the field of cancer epigenetics Specifically I track 1 coauthoring relationships and 2 the diversity of lines of research inquiry across each scientist's publication record in order to discern which if any intervening patenting events account for significant changes in those two types of variables In a sample of fiftytwo academic scientists there is a negative relationship between applying for a patent and four measures of scientific collaboration and research diversity The duration and magnitude of those negative effects depend upon the frequency with which a scientist applies for patents as well as his or her cumulative years of academic experience and can be moderated by elevated publication output or partially negated by receipt of a patent grant The results support and nuance patent canalyzation theory motivating a series of questions around intellectual property policy academic autonomy and the task of commercializing epigenetic biomarkers currently shared by academic and company labs
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,301 | 0,063 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».