Timothy Caulfield1, Shawn He Harmon, Yann Joly. 1. Health Law and Science Policy Group, Law Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2H5, Canada. tcaulfld@law.ualberta.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. Over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work. Concurrently, they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open science model) in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and to maximize the impact of their research. DISCUSSION: We present selected guidelines from three countries (Canada, United States, and United Kingdom) situated at the forefront of genomics to illustrate this potential policy conflict. Examining the innovation ecosystem and the messages conveyed by the different policies surveyed, we further investigate the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies. SUMMARY: Commercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we wish to point out the need to gather additional evidence on the coexistence of open science and commercialization policies and on its impact, both positive and negative, on genomics academic research.
BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve research outcomes have resulted in genomic researchers being confronted with complex and seemingly contradictory instructions about how to perform their tasks. Over the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work. Concurrently, they are encouraged to collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly (that is, to adopt an open science model) in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and to maximize the impact of their research. DISCUSSION: We present selected guidelines from three countries (Canada, United States, and United Kingdom) situated at the forefront of genomics to illustrate this potential policy conflict. Examining the innovation ecosystem and the messages conveyed by the different policies surveyed, we further investigate the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies. SUMMARY: Commercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we wish to point out the need to gather additional evidence on the coexistence of open science and commercialization policies and on its impact, both positive and negative, on genomics academic research.
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Jason de Roulet; Joel P Thompson; Jason I Reminick; Ashley Thai; Zachary White-Stellato; Christopher A Beck; Benjamin P George; Hamilton Moses Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy Caulfield; Amy L McGuire; Mildred Cho; Janet A Buchanan; Michael M Burgess; Ursula Danilczyk; Christina M Diaz; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Shane K Green; Marc A Hodosh; Eric T Juengst; Jane Kaye; Laurence Kedes; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Trudo Lemmens; Eric M Meslin; Juli Murphy; Robert L Nussbaum; Margaret Otlowski; Daryl Pullman; Peter N Ray; Jeremy Sugarman; Michael Timmons Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Teri A Manolio; Marc Abramowicz; Fahd Al-Mulla; Warwick Anderson; Rudi Balling; Adam C Berger; Steven Bleyl; Aravinda Chakravarti; Wasun Chantratita; Rex L Chisholm; Vajira H W Dissanayake; Michael Dunn; Victor J Dzau; Bok-Ghee Han; Tim Hubbard; Anne Kolbe; Bruce Korf; Michiaki Kubo; Paul Lasko; Erkki Leego; Surakameth Mahasirimongkol; Partha P Majumdar; Gert Matthijs; Howard L McLeod; Andres Metspalu; Pierre Meulien; Satoru Miyano; Yaakov Naparstek; P Pearl O'Rourke; George P Patrinos; Heidi L Rehm; Mary V Relling; Gad Rennert; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Dan M Roden; Alan R Shuldiner; Sukdeb Sinha; Patrick Tan; Mats Ulfendahl; Robyn Ward; Marc S Williams; John E L Wong; Eric D Green; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Claudio U Köser; Matthew J Ellington; Edward J P Cartwright; Stephen H Gillespie; Nicholas M Brown; Mark Farrington; Matthew T G Holden; Gordon Dougan; Stephen D Bentley; Julian Parkhill; Sharon J Peacock Journal: PLoS Pathog Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 6.823
Authors: Murray N Robertson; Paul M Ylioja; Alice E Williamson; Michael Woelfle; Michael Robins; Katrina A Badiola; Paul Willis; Piero Olliaro; Timothy N C Wells; Matthew H Todd Journal: Parasitology Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 3.234