Literature DB >> 22212358

Patenting and the gender gap: should women be encouraged to patent more?

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín1.   

Abstract

The commercialization of academic science has come to be understood as economically desirable for institutions, individual researchers, and the public. Not surprisingly, commercial activity, particularly that which results from patenting, appears to be producing changes in the standards used to evaluate scientists' performance and contributions. In this context, concerns about a gender gap in patenting activity have arisen and some have argued for the need to encourage women to seek more patents. They believe that because academic advancement is mainly dependent on productivity (Stuart and Ding in American Journal of Sociology 112:97-144, 2006; Azoulay et al. in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63:599-623, 2007), differences in research output have the power to negatively impact women's careers. Moreover, in the case of patenting activity, they claim that the gender gap also has the potential to negatively affect society. This is so because scientific and technological advancement and innovation play a crucial role in contemporary societies. Thus, women's more limited involvement in the commercialization of science and technology can also be detrimental to innovation itself. Nevertheless, calls to encourage women to patent on grounds that such activity is likely to play a significant role in the betterment of both women's careers and society seem to be based on two problematic assumptions: (1) that the methods to determine women's productivity in patenting activities are an appropriate way to measure their research efforts and the impact of their work, and (2) that patenting, particularly in academia, benefits society. The purpose of this paper is to call into question these two assumptions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22212358     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9344-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  53 in total

1.  Data-sharing and data-withholding in genetics and the life sciences: results of a national survey of technology transfer officers.

Authors:  Eric G Campbell; Eran Bendavid
Journal:  J Health Care Law Policy       Date:  2003

2.  Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Jason W Busse; Dianne Jackowski; Victor M Montori; Holger Schünemann; Sheila Sprague; Derek Mears; Emil H Schemitsch; Dianne Heels-Ansdell; P J Devereaux
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  The "gender gap" in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Elizabeth A Guancial; Cynthia Cooper Worobey; Lori E Henault; Yuchiao Chang; Rebecca Starr; Nancy J Tarbell; Elaine M Hylek
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Clearing a path through the patent thicket.

Authors:  Chris Holman
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2006-05-19       Impact factor: 41.582

5.  "Hyperscrutiny" of academic-industrial relationships: potential for unintended consequences--a response.

Authors:  Steven E Seltzer; Andrew Menard; Renee Cruea; Ron Arenson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Gender aspects in medical publication - the Wiener klinische Wochenschrift.

Authors:  Andrea Heckenberg; Christiane Druml
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 7.  Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery?

Authors:  Ying Zhuge; Joyce Kaufman; Diane M Simeone; Herbert Chen; Omaida C Velazquez
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Neglected tropical disease vaccines.

Authors:  Peter J Hotez; Ami Shah Brown
Journal:  Biologicals       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 1.856

9.  The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control.

Authors:  Derek Yach; Corinna Hawkes; C Linn Gould; Karen J Hofman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  National trends in Staphylococcus aureus infection rates: impact on economic burden and mortality over a 6-year period (1998-2003).

Authors:  Gary A Noskin; Robert J Rubin; Jerome J Schentag; Jan Kluytmans; Edwin C Hedblom; Cassie Jacobson; Maartje Smulders; Eric Gemmen; Murtuza Bharmal
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2007-09-21       Impact factor: 9.079

View more
  3 in total

1.  How can more women-owned technology businesses get funding?

Authors:  Brenda K Wiederhold
Journal:  Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw       Date:  2014-01

2.  The academic advantage: gender disparities in patenting.

Authors:  Cassidy R Sugimoto; Chaoqun Ni; Jevin D West; Vincent Larivière
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.

Authors:  Pavel V Ovseiko; Trisha Greenhalgh; Paula Adam; Jonathan Grant; Saba Hinrichs-Krapels; Kathryn E Graham; Pamela A Valentine; Omar Sued; Omar F Boukhris; Nada M Al Olaqi; Idrees S Al Rahbi; Anne-Maree Dowd; Sara Bice; Tamika L Heiden; Michael D Fischer; Sue Dopson; Robyn Norton; Alexandra Pollitt; Steven Wooding; Gert V Balling; Ulla Jakobsen; Ellen Kuhlmann; Ineke Klinge; Linda H Pololi; Reshma Jagsi; Helen Lawton Smith; Henry Etzkowitz; Mathias W Nielsen; Carme Carrion; Maite Solans-Domènech; Esther Vizcaino; Lin Naing; Quentin H N Cheok; Baerbel Eckelmann; Moses C Simuyemba; Temwa Msiska; Giovanna Declich; Laurel D Edmunds; Vasiliki Kiparoglou; Alison M J Buchan; Catherine Williamson; Graham M Lord; Keith M Channon; Rebecca Surender; Alastair M Buchan
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2016-07-19
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.