What's Wrong With Commercial Success?
Private nonprofit institutions of higher research face many challenges today including escalating costs, reduced federal and state appropriations for research, unrelenting competition from the for-profit sector, and the shifting priorities of private philanthropy.
There are many ways that private nonprofit institutions of higher education will respond to these challenges. The authors mention a few of them in the chapter including aggressive marketing to students, commercializing research, and bypassing the competitive process in favor of direct appeals to state legislators and Congress for research dollars.
I take issue with the authors’ discussion of the commercialization of research as a viable response to the challenges listed above. With the passage of the Bayh-Doyle Act in 1980, universities and their research faculty were granted ownership rights for research results supported with federal funds. Because of this law, many universities have enjoyed tremendous commercial success as a result of trademarks, patents, and licenses that were developed at the university. (Can you say Gatorade?)
While I certainly understand the tension (and arguments) that exists between general research (knowledge for the sake of knowledge) and applied research (research for the solution of practical problems), I don’t think that it is appropriate for the authors to assume that one is better than the other. Are we assuming that academic excellence cannot be realized in research that results in commercial success and increased revenue for a university?
Today’s research universities can be both centers of academic excellence and engines of economic progress. If, as the authors suggest, this is not the intent of the major private research universities, then I don’t understand why. The authors state that, “the academic benefits of commercialization of research remain unclear,” and, “important academic values are being threatened.” Maybe I am missing something but I just don’t see how academic values are threatened when university professors are able to take their research, apply it to the solution of real world problems, and generate revenue for their institution as a result.
There are many ways that private nonprofit institutions of higher education will respond to these challenges. The authors mention a few of them in the chapter including aggressive marketing to students, commercializing research, and bypassing the competitive process in favor of direct appeals to state legislators and Congress for research dollars.
I take issue with the authors’ discussion of the commercialization of research as a viable response to the challenges listed above. With the passage of the Bayh-Doyle Act in 1980, universities and their research faculty were granted ownership rights for research results supported with federal funds. Because of this law, many universities have enjoyed tremendous commercial success as a result of trademarks, patents, and licenses that were developed at the university. (Can you say Gatorade?)
While I certainly understand the tension (and arguments) that exists between general research (knowledge for the sake of knowledge) and applied research (research for the solution of practical problems), I don’t think that it is appropriate for the authors to assume that one is better than the other. Are we assuming that academic excellence cannot be realized in research that results in commercial success and increased revenue for a university?
Today’s research universities can be both centers of academic excellence and engines of economic progress. If, as the authors suggest, this is not the intent of the major private research universities, then I don’t understand why. The authors state that, “the academic benefits of commercialization of research remain unclear,” and, “important academic values are being threatened.” Maybe I am missing something but I just don’t see how academic values are threatened when university professors are able to take their research, apply it to the solution of real world problems, and generate revenue for their institution as a result.
posted by Anonymous @ 11:10 AM
1 Comments:
At 5:04 PM, September 11, 2006,
austin said…
Private nonprofit institutions should be allowed to generate money through research and not be treated poorly because of this. Fundraising campaigns are widely accepted and encouraged ways to bring in money for the college to continue its existence, so why can't applied research fal under the fundraising umbrella.
The professors are pushing the education limits by conducting research and happen to be using that knowledge to bring in money as well. If private nonprofits acknowledged this activity as aiding to the fundraising capabilities, would it be looked at as a questionable practice?
Post a Comment
<< Home